Of freedom and preventive detention

The judgement clinically examined the law and kept the passion of freedom at a distance. It instead chose to clinically examine the language – the best way to look at the legislative intent

There is a whole space of law relating to human freedom. Precious and yet a crucial balancing act. Often courts are called upon to judicially review the state Act qua the man who is labelled bad, goonda smuggler or whatever.

The court is often called upon to look at all perspectives and not just see whether human freedom, citizen’s rights have been tampered with. Also does the court dull its lenses when it is dealing with different specimens? Hopefully, surely and ideally it should not.

A division bench of the AP High court comprising Justice KC Bhanu and C Kodandaram upheld the detention of Chintam Balaji Reddy under the AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers , Dacoits Drug Offenders Goondas Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act.

The detenu was taken not preventive detention in December last year ‘until further orders’. According to the order of detention the person detained was a dreaded notorious red sanders wood smuggler involved in seven different cases. Speaking for the bench Justice Kodandaram said : the detaining authority had come to the definite conclusion based on the past conduct of the detenu that normal penal proceedings have failed to curb the illegal activities of the detenu.

In spite of the detune being released on bail in three offences he had once again resorted to commit four offences. Another argument that did not find favour with the bench was that the authority had failed to consider that the detenu was already in custody and therefore there was no need for preventive detention and failure to consider the same vitiated the order of detention.

In another habeas corpus writ petition filed by Chiriboina Krishna. The bench upheld the detention order made in April under the same Act.

The bench imposed costs of Rs 25000/ on the petitioner. He would claim that he is a law abiding citizen and since he was the brother of city corporator, Saritha Yadav he was falsely implicated in three cases. The petitioner challenged the detention order on various grounds including that there was no subjective satisfaction before arriving at the conclusion for preventive detention as required under the Act.

The order is also challenged on the ground that it does specify the period of detention. The bench of Justice KC Bhanu and Justice Kodandaram speaking through the later, dealt at length with the various provisions of the preventive detention Act and declared that any activity either directly or indirectly causes or calculated to cause any harm, danger, or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public the same would fall within the scope of disturbance to the maintenance of publicorder.

It was also pointed out by the bench that the period of detention would be specified only after the matter is before the Advisory Board and the petitioner had moved the court before that state had arrived.

The judgement clinically examined the law and kept the passion of freedom at a distance. It instead chose to clinically examine the language – the best way to look at the legislative intent.

Which is the better of the tasks when in conflict? Perhaps in the instant case the task was seemingly less challenging, but the court is so oft bereft of the emotion save that of their inherited thought discipline. Many would believe in that we trust. The two habeas corpus petitions point out yet again how seemingly easy is the difficult task : To balance human freedom with its indulgence.