VASANTHU SUMALATHA AND OTHER Vs. STATE OF ANDHARA PRADESH REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY HYDERABAD AND OTHER
LAWS(APH)-2015-9-93
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on
September 29,2015
Vasanthu Sumalatha And Other
Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Andhara Pradesh Rep. By Its Chief Secretary Hyderabad And Other
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
REX V. HALLIDAY [REFERRED TO]KESHAV TALPADE V. KING-EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
ANA CAROLINA D'SOUZA V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K. YADAVA REDDY V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
R. V. SECY. OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPTT. [REFERRED TO]
SHIBBAN LAL SAXENA V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
MACHINDAR V. KING [REFERRED TO]
TARAPADA DE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. ATAMA RAM SHRIDHAR VAIDYA [REFERRED TO]
COMISSIONER OF POLICE BOMBAY VS. GORDHANDAS BHANJI [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHAN BHARDWAJ VS. STATE OF DELHI AND CITHERS [REFERRED TO]
HARIKISAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
S PARTAP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
GODAVARI SHAMRAO PARULEKAR SHAMRAO VISHNU PARULEKAR PRAHLAD KRISHNA KURANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
RAM MANOHAR LOHIA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BARIUM CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. COMPANY LAW BOARD [REFERRED TO]
HADIBANDHU DAS VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUTTACK ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
PUSHKAR MUKHERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KARIM VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
DURGA SHOW VS. PRESIDENT OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JAYANARAYAN SUKUL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
ARUN GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
MADHU LIMAYE MADHU LIMAYE VS. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE MONGHYR:VED MURTI [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRA NATH MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
KANU BISWAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
KISHORI MOHAN BERA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJANSINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU DAYAL DEORAH RAJ KUMAR DEORAH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KAMRUP:DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KAMRUP [REFERRED TO]
KUSO SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SATYA BRATA GHOSE VS. ARIF ALI DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SIBASAGAR JORHAT [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK HANIF KAMAL SAHA GUDMA MAJHI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL :STATE OF WEST BENGAL :STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
BHUT NATH METE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ALAM JITEN NINIA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTA JADAV VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
BIRAM CHAND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HARADHAN SAHA MADAN LAL AGARWALA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
NIZAMUDDIN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
DWARIKA PRASAD SAHU VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM BAHADUR RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
KHUDIRAM DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
RAM BALI RAJBHAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
DULAL ROY VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BURDWAN [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K S SUBRAMANIAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
VIMALCHAND JAWANTRAJ JAIN VS. PRADHAN [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD YOUSUF RATHER VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
RAMGHANDRA A KAMAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MOHAMMAD YAKUB [REFERRED TO]
SHRITUSHAR THAKKER MARIAMTAYABAUZANZIBARWALA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ICCHU DEVI CHORARIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM NATH HOON VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANGALBHAI MOTIRAM PATEL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SHALINI SONI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S GURDIP SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LALLUBHAI JOGIBHAI PATEL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MEHDI MOHAMED JOUDI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
FRANCIS CORALIE MULLIN VS. ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
KIRIT KUMAR CHAMAN LAL KUNDALIYA KIRIT KUMAR CHAMAN LAL KUNDALIYA KIRIT KUMAR CHAMAN LAL KUNDALIYA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MEHRUNISSA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ZAKIR VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
L M S UMMU SALEEMA VS. B B GUJARAL [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHORE PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
DEVL LAL MAHTO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAJSUDDIN ALIAS BABU TAMCHI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY NARAIN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ PAL SAHU SURAJ PAL SAHU VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
ANANT SAKHARAM RAUT LEENA ANAND RAUT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MANOHARLAL NARANG [REFERRED TO]
MOHINUDDIN ALIAS MOIN MASTER VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BEED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. KAMAL KISHORE SAINI [REFERRED TO]
ASLAM AHMED ZAHIRE AHMED SHAIK VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMA DHONDU BORADE VS. V K SARAF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
N MEERA RANI N MEERA RANI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU:STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
M AHAMEDKUTTY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KUMAR CHAUHAN ALIAS BANTI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GAZI KHAN ALIAS CHOTIA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
P U ABDUL RAHIMAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K M ABDULLA KUNHI AND B L ABDUL KHADER VS. UNION OF INDIA STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
AMIR SHAD KHAN AZIZ AHMEDKHAN ALIAS AZIZ MOHAMMAD KHAN VS. L HMINGLIANA:L HMINGLIANA [REFERRED TO]
JULIA JOSE MAVELY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HARPREET KAUR HARVINDER SINGH BEDI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
C VIJAYALAKSHMI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. C SUBRAMANI:A VADIVEL ALIAS SUNDARAVADIVEL:M SELVAM [REFERRED TO]
AMIN MOHAMMAD QURESHI VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GREATER BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESHKUMAR ISHWARDAS PATEL UNION OF INDIA OTHERS UNION OF INDIA HANSABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NUTAN J PATEL MS VS. S V PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
KUNDANBHAI DULABHAI SHAIKH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AHMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]
RAJAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
POWANAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MEENA JAYENDRA THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
T K GOPAL ALIAS GOPI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SANTOSH SHANKAR ACHARYA [REFERRED TO]
A C RAZIA VS. GOVERNMENT OD KERALA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. AMRIT LAL MANCHANDA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VS. C ANITA [REFERRED TO]
SUNILA JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BHAURAO PUNJABRAO GAWANDE [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. LAISHRAM LINCOLA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PEBAM NINGOL MIKOI DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [REFERRED TO]
REKHA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
G REDDEIAH VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
D M NAGARAJA VS. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
UMMU SABEENA VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
RUSHIKESH TANAJI BHOITE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
O RAMACHANDRA REDDI VS. DIRECTOR D R D L [REFERRED TO]
S HARI NATH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PILLI YETESWARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PABBA YADAGIRI VS. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]
V. MURAGESH VS. COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]
DURGAM SUBRAMANYAM VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL NASAR ADAM ISMAIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
HARSHALA SANTOSH PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
N. SENGODAN VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [REFERRED TO]
S.SATTU VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
BETHAMPALLI BHULAKSHMI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2024-2-2] [REFERRED TO]KARANAM JANAKI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2019-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
FARHANA BEGUM VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
K. PADMAVATHI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-11-123] [REFERRED TO]
K. PADMAVATHI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-11-123] [REFERRED TO]
KAMSANI SAROJANA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
SOKKAM SREENIVASULU VS. STATE OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2024-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
SOKKAM SREENIVASULU VS. STATE OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2024-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
MANDA MARIYAMMA VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2024-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
KAMSANI RAMANA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
KAMSANI SANJEEVA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
PEDDIREDDY SIREESHA VS. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KURNOOL DISTRICT AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2019-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
KAMSANI SAROJANA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2019-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
ANGOTH RENUKA VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2016-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
KARRI SUDHA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2023-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
KARRI SUDHA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2023-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
NANDYALA SHAIK SALEEM VS. STATE OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2024-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL SELVI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2024-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
GUDURU PAKKIRAMMA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2019-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
KAMSANI RAMANA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2019-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHANA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF TELANGANA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, LAW & ORDER, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2017-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
YERUKALA SUNKAMMA VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2023-7-138] [REFERRED TO]
VANKUDOTH GOURI W/O VANKUDOTH MOHAN VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
I. DHANALAXMI VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2016-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Ramesh Ranganathan, J. -
(1.)Personal liberty is of the widest amplitude covering a variety of rights. Its deprivation shall only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law conformable to the mandate of the Supreme Law, the Constitution, more particularly to Art. 21 thereof. (N. Sengodan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 8 SCC 664 ; Bhut Nath Mete Vs. State of W.B., (1974) 1 SCC 645 . Of all fundamental rights, conceded to the citizens under the Constitution, the right of personal liberty is the most cherished. A person is not to be deprived of this right except in accordance with the procedure laid down by law even if he be a man of the most desparate character. (Pilli Yeteswari Vs. Govt. of A.P 1996(4) ALT 485 = (1997)1 ALT(Cri.) 184 .
(2.)Preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and such meagre safeguards as the Constitution has provided, against the improper exercise of the power, must be jealously watched and enforced by the Court. (Ram Krishan Bhardwaj Vs. State of Delhi AIR 1953 SC 318 = 1953 SCR 708 . Art. 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India, which permits preventive detention, is an exception to Art. 21 of the Constitution. An exception cannot, ordinarily, nullify the full force of the main rule, which is the right to liberty guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. An exception can apply only in rare cases. The imposition of what is, in effect, a substantial term of imprisonment by the exercise of executive discretion, without trial, lies uneasily with the ordinary concepts of the rule of law. (Rekha Vs. State of T.N (2011) 5 SCC 244 ; R. Vs. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt., exp Stafford (1998) 1 WLR 503 (CA) . The law of preventive detention can only be justified by striking the right balance between individual liberty on the one hand and the needs of an orderly society on the other. (Commr. of Police Vs. C. Anita (2004) 7 SCC 467 ; Union of India Vs. Amrit Lal Manchanda (2004) 3 SCC 75 .
(3.)The power of preventive detention is a frightful and awesome power with drastic consequences affecting personal liberty which is the most cherished and prised possession of man in a civilised society. The said power has to be exercised with the greatest care and caution, and it is the duty of the Courts to ensure that this power is not abused or misused. (Durgam Subramanyam Vs. Government of A.P. 2013 (4) ALT 243 (D.B) ; Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. UT of Delhi AIR 1981 SC 746 The power of preventive detention must be confined to very narrow limits, otherwise the right to liberty would be rendered nugatory. To prevent misuse of this potentially dangerous power, the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed and meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however technical, is mandatory and vital. (Rekha ) supra. When it comes to fundamental rights under the Constitution, the Court, irrespective of the enormity and gravity of allegations made against the detenu, must intervene. The gravity of the evil to the community, resulting from anti-social activities, cannot furnish sufficient reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with the procedure established by law, particularly as normal penal laws would still be available for being invoked instead of keeping a person in detention without trial. (Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh Vs. Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad (1996) 3 SCC 194 ; Mahesh Kumar Chauhan Vs. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 148 ; Prabhu Dayal Deorah Vs. Distt. Magistrate (1974) 1 SCC 103 . The law relating to preventive detention has always been strictly interpreted so as to uphold the concept of individual freedom. Courts have always acted to safeguard the purity of such right which is available to be interfered with only under the most stringent and rigorous conditions. Pilli Yeteswari (supra).
(2.)Preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and such meagre safeguards as the Constitution has provided, against the improper exercise of the power, must be jealously watched and enforced by the Court. (Ram Krishan Bhardwaj Vs. State of Delhi AIR 1953 SC 318 = 1953 SCR 708 . Art. 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India, which permits preventive detention, is an exception to Art. 21 of the Constitution. An exception cannot, ordinarily, nullify the full force of the main rule, which is the right to liberty guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. An exception can apply only in rare cases. The imposition of what is, in effect, a substantial term of imprisonment by the exercise of executive discretion, without trial, lies uneasily with the ordinary concepts of the rule of law. (Rekha Vs. State of T.N (2011) 5 SCC 244 ; R. Vs. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt., exp Stafford (1998) 1 WLR 503 (CA) . The law of preventive detention can only be justified by striking the right balance between individual liberty on the one hand and the needs of an orderly society on the other. (Commr. of Police Vs. C. Anita (2004) 7 SCC 467 ; Union of India Vs. Amrit Lal Manchanda (2004) 3 SCC 75 .
(3.)The power of preventive detention is a frightful and awesome power with drastic consequences affecting personal liberty which is the most cherished and prised possession of man in a civilised society. The said power has to be exercised with the greatest care and caution, and it is the duty of the Courts to ensure that this power is not abused or misused. (Durgam Subramanyam Vs. Government of A.P. 2013 (4) ALT 243 (D.B) ; Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. UT of Delhi AIR 1981 SC 746 The power of preventive detention must be confined to very narrow limits, otherwise the right to liberty would be rendered nugatory. To prevent misuse of this potentially dangerous power, the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed and meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however technical, is mandatory and vital. (Rekha ) supra. When it comes to fundamental rights under the Constitution, the Court, irrespective of the enormity and gravity of allegations made against the detenu, must intervene. The gravity of the evil to the community, resulting from anti-social activities, cannot furnish sufficient reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with the procedure established by law, particularly as normal penal laws would still be available for being invoked instead of keeping a person in detention without trial. (Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh Vs. Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad (1996) 3 SCC 194 ; Mahesh Kumar Chauhan Vs. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 148 ; Prabhu Dayal Deorah Vs. Distt. Magistrate (1974) 1 SCC 103 . The law relating to preventive detention has always been strictly interpreted so as to uphold the concept of individual freedom. Courts have always acted to safeguard the purity of such right which is available to be interfered with only under the most stringent and rigorous conditions. Pilli Yeteswari (supra).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.