The Supreme Court recently clarified the criteria for detention duration and the interpretation of public order in a significant ruling. The Court dismissed an appeal challenging a preventive detention order under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers Act, 1986.

The verdict diverged from a past ruling and emphasized that Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution's 3-month limit applies only up to obtaining the Advisory Board's report. The State Government can then act based on the report's findings. The Court also highlighted that this time frame doesn't pertain to detention post-Advisory Board evaluation.

In the case at hand, an individual contested a 12-month detention order, relying on the Cherukuri Mani case's interpretation. The Court clarified that Section 3(2) of the Act is about delegation, not detention duration. A precedent reinforced that specifying the detention period prematurely contradicted the Act's structure.

Regarding grounds for detention, the appellant argued that liquor sales weren't inherently a threat to public order. The Court recognized the delicate distinction between law and order and public order, asserting that an act's impact on public order necessitated a broader consideration of its implications, especially in liquor-related cases.

It reiterated that if liquor sales jeopardize public health, they become prejudicial to public order. The Court upheld the authority's subjective judgment in assessing such matters and ultimately dismissed the appeal.

This case underscores the importance of taking into account surrounding circumstances and the Advisory Board's report in determining detention duration and evaluating an act's impact on public order.

Case Title: Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Click here to read/download Judgment