Don't misuse Goonda Act for preventive detention, says SC

The Supreme Court has warned against the indiscriminate use of the law against bootleggers, dacoits and goondas to push people into preventive custody.

A bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Navin Sinha strongly disapproved of the decision of the Telangana government to describe a seller of spurious seeds as a ‘goonda’ to keep him behind bars.

“To classify the detenu as a goonda affecting public order, because of inadequate yield from the chilli seeds sold by him, and prevent him from moving for bail even, is a gross abuse of the statutory power of preventive detention,” the bench said.

The court set aside the Telangana authorities’ decision to issue a detention order for one year against the husband of appellant Shantha, calling it ‘unsustainable’. The court said the order was affecting the life and liberty of citizens.

The government invoked the stringent provisions of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act of 1986 against owner of Laxmi Bhargavi Seeds, district distributor of Jeeva Agri Genetic Seeds.

Three FIRs were lodged against him for cheating and other offences under the Indian Penal Code and under different provisions of the Seeds Act.

In an order dated October 17, 2016, the Telangana government said it had no option, but to invoke the law on preventive detention to insulate society from his ‘evil deeds’.

The authorities had said the trader was harming poor, small farmers and jeopardising their safety and financial well-being.
“Recourse to normal legal procedure would be time consuming, and would not be an effective deterrent to prevent the detenu from indulging in further prejudicial activities in the business of spurious seeds, affecting maintenance of public order,” the government had argued.

The appellant, on the other hand, contended an order of preventive detention was serious and would affect the citizen’s liberty. The man in question was already under arrest in two cases and there was no question of bail, as he had not applied for it.

Concurring with the appellant’s plea, the bench said, “An order of preventive detention, though based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, is nonetheless a serious matter, affecting the life and liberty of the citizen under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.”

If the power is misused or abused, “it will stand vitiated as being in colourable exercise of power”, the bench cautioned.