The Supreme Court allowed an appeal challenging the preventive detention order against Aruna Bai alias Anguri Bai under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 -- The detenu had been detained based on three criminal cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 involving 'Ganja' -- The High Court had upheld the detention order -- The Supreme Court found that the detention order merely referred to the criminal cases without any material showing how the detenu's activities affected public order as distinct from law and order -- The Court emphasized the crucial distinction between public order and law and order in preventive detention cases -- The apprehension that the detenu might obtain bail did not justify preventive detention -- The order was quashed and the detenu directed to be released
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Roshini Devi challenging the preventive detention order against her mother Aruna Bai alias Anguri Bai -- The Court held that the order of detention dated 10.03.2025 passed under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders [Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders] Act, 1986 (for short, the Act of 1986) was unsustainable -- The Court found that merely referring to three criminal cases registered against the detenu under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was insufficient to establish that her activities were prejudicial to maintenance of public order as required by Section 2(a) of the Act of 1986 -- The distinction between law and order and public order was emphasized -- The apprehension that the detenu might obtain bail and continue illegal activities did not justify preventive detention -- The order was set aside and the detenu directed to be released forthwith
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of preventive detention dated 10.03.2025, and directed that the detenu be released forthwith
Citation: 2026 LawText (SC) (01) 41
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.18223 of 2025)
Date of Decision: 2026-01-08
Case Title: Whether the order of preventive detention passed against the detenu under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 was sustainable in absence of material indicating her activities were prejudicial to maintenance of public order as required by Section 2(a) of the Act
Before Judge: J.K. MAHESHWARI J. , ATUL S. CHANDURKAR J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026 INSC 41
Advocate(s): Mr. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw
Appellant: Roshini Devi
Respondent: The State of Telangana and Others
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal challenging preventive detention order
Remedy Sought: Appellant sought quashing of preventive detention order against her mother and her release
Filing Reason: Appellant aggrieved by High Court's dismissal of writ petition challenging detention order
Previous Decisions: Collector and District Magistrate passed detention order on 10.03.2025 -- General Administration Department granted approval on 15.03.2025 -- Order confirmed on 15.04.2025 -- High Court dismissed writ petition on 28.10.2025
Issues: Whether the preventive detention order was sustainable without material showing the detenu's activities were prejudicial to maintenance of public order as required by Section 2(a) of the Act of 1986 Whether mere reference to criminal cases under NDPS Act was sufficient to establish threat to public order for preventive detention
Submissions/Arguments: Appellant argued that absence of material showing acts prejudicial to public order made detention unsustainable -- Mere classification as 'drug offender' under Section 2(f) was insufficient -- Detention was passed as alternative to cancellation of bail -- Previous criminal history alone could not justify detention without specific instances affecting public order -- Reliance placed on Rekha vs State of Tamil Nadu Respondents argued that detenu was drug offender under Section 2(f) -- Continuing involvement with Ganja justified conclusion that activities affected public order -- Ordinary law provisions were insufficient to deter her -- Subjective satisfaction about likelihood of breach of public order was properly recorded -- Reliance placed on Pesala Nookaraju vs Government of Andhra Pradesh
Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention requires material specifically showing how the detenu's activities are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, not merely law and order -- Mere reference to criminal cases without demonstrating their impact on public order is insufficient -- The distinction between public order and law and order is fundamental in preventive detention jurisprudence -- Apprehension that detenu might obtain bail does not justify preventive detention as alternative measure
Judgment Excerpts: The order of detention merely refers to three crimes registered against the detenu on 16.09.2024, 12.12.2024 and 17.12.2024 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documentary material on record we are satisfied that the order of preventive detention is liable to be set aside
Procedural History: Detention order passed on 10.03.2025 -- Approval granted on 15.03.2025 -- Order confirmed on 15.04.2025 -- Writ Petition No.12443 of 2025 filed in High Court -- High Court dismissed writ petition on 28.10.2025 -- Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18223 of 2025 filed in Supreme Court -- Leave granted -- Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 heard and decided
