Supreme Court rules against preventive detention of Hyderabad woman, says drug charges alone don’t threaten public order

The detaining authority had recorded the apprehension that, if the detenu were to obtain bail, she would continue to engage in illegal activities. It further held that “the proceedings registered against her under the ordinary law had no deterrent effect and hence it was found necessary to detain her as a last resort in interest of the public at large”.

The writ petition filed by Roshini Bai, Aruna Bai’s daughter, challenging the detention was dismissed by the Telangana High Court in October 2025, finding the detenu’s actions sufficient to raise public threat and alarm.

Bai’s counsel, senior advocate Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, contended that the detention order was passed merely as an alternative to cancellation of bail. He submitted that, in the absence of any specific instances indicating that the detenu’s conduct was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, there was no basis to direct her detention. He further argued that the detenu’s activities could be termed, at best, prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘law and order’ rather than ‘public order’.

Meanwhile, Kumar Vaibhaw, the counsel for the respondent state, held that the detenu’s continued illegal acts indicated that the provisions of ordinary law were insufficient to deter her from continuing such illegal acts in dealing with narcotic drugs.

‘Mere apprehensions… not sufficient’

The Supreme Court, however, found the detention order fundamentally flawed. The bench observed that the preventive detention was used as a “last resort” and if the detaining authority was of the view that the detenu had violated any conditions of bail, steps for cancellation of her liberty could have been taken and that has not been done.

The court referred to the case of Ameena Begum Vs the State of Telangana and Others, which quoted the case of Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar, to underline that care should be taken that the liberty of a person is not jeopardised unless his case falls squarely within the four corners of the relevant law.

“The law of preventive detention should not be used merely to clip the wings of an accused who is involved in a criminal prosecution.”

Accordingly, the bench held that “mere apprehensions” that the detenu was likely to indulge in similar crimes prejudicial to the maintenance of public order would not be a sufficient ground to order her preventive detention. The bench also noted that the detention order does not indicate in what manner the maintenance of public order was either adversely affected or was likely to be adversely affected so as to detain the detenu.

The court noted that the detaining authority merely reproduced statutory language without providing evidence that the detenu’s activities posed a grave threat to public health or social peace.

Stating that it was well settled that there is a fine distinction between “law and order” and “public order”, the bench held that “mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order unless there is material to show that the narcotic drug dealt with by the detenu was in fact dangerous to public health”.

Quashing both the detention order and the high court’s previous judgment, the Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of Aruna Bai if she is not required in any other proceedings.