Bandla Rajyam vs The State Of Ap
2023 Latest Caselaw 5500 AP

            HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                     MAIN CASE No. W.P.No.18099 of 2023

                                 PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.
No      DATE                                                               OFFICE
                                         ORDER

NOTE

15.11.2023 UDPR, J & KM, J While perusing the file for preparing the judgment, it is noticed that as per Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986), the maximum period of detention under this Act shall be 12 months from the date of detention and in consonance with said power, the Government have issued G.O.Rt.No.1451, General Administration (SC-1) Dept. dated 24.07.2023 and ordered that the detention of Sri Bandla Harikrishna shall be for a period of 12 months from the date of detention.

Be that as it may, a perusal of clauses (4) and (7) of Article 22 of Constitution of India gives an understanding that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person longer than three months unless

(a) An Advisory Board has reported before expiry of 3 months that in its opinion there is sufficient cause for detention. Provided further that nothing in clause (4)(a) shall authorize the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under clause (7)(b).

Thus, clauses (4) and (7) of Article 22 give an understanding that

(i) Generally no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize such detention for longer period than three months. However, such period can extend beyond three months when

(a) An Advisory Board gives a report within three months of preventive detention stating that in its opinion there is sufficient cause for such detention

(b) Provided such preventive detention shall not extend beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by the Parliament In view of Article 22 clauses (4) and (7), the question arises is whether a State Government following the legislative field in entry No.1 of List II (State List) and entry No.3 of List III (Concurrent list) while enacting the law for preventive detention, can prescribe preventive detention for more than 3 months and preventively detain a person by following such provision since such prescription of a period exceeding 3 months is not by a law made by the Parliament but by the State Government. Therefore, whether such prescription of preventive detention beyond 3 months by a State Law is not violative of Article 22 clauses (4) and (7) of Constitution.

To hear on this question of law, the matter is reopened and posted to 21.11.2023.

_________ UDPR, J

______ KM,J mva