The Evening Wrap: Preventive detention only if detenu affects public order: SC

The Supreme Court on Monday said a preventive detention order can only be passed if the activities of the detenu affects or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order, PTI reported. The court said this as it quashed the Telangana government’s detention order against a man, booked in several criminal cases related to fraud and forgery, saying that for ‘public order’ to be disturbed, “there must in turn be public disorder”, affecting the society at large. A close reading of the detention order, under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (TPDAA), makes it clear that it was issued not on any apprehension of widespread public harm, danger or alarm but only because the detenu was successful in obtaining anticipatory bail/bail from the Courts in each of the five FIRs against him, the apex court said. A bench of Justices R F Nariman and B R Gavai allowed the appeal against the Telangana High Court order, dismissing the plea filed by a woman challenging the detention order passed against her husband under the TPDAA. It said that while it cannot seriously be disputed that the detenu may be a “white collar offender” as defined under provisions of TPDAA, yet a preventive detention order can only be passed if his activities adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order. The bench noted that a public order as defined under the Act is to be a harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave widespread danger to life or public health. Multiple FIRs were lodged against the woman’s husband for cheating, fraud and criminal breach of trust but he had been successful in getting anticipatory bail/bail in all the cases against him. “We, therefore, quash the detention order on this ground. Consequently, it is unnecessary to go into any of the other grounds argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner. The impugned judgment is set aside and the Detenu is ordered to be freed forthwith. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed,” the bench said. It said that in the facts of this case, it is clear that at the highest, a possible apprehension of breach of law and order can be said to be made out if it is apprehended that the detenu, if set free, will continue to cheat gullible persons. “There can be no doubt that for ‘public order’ to be disturbed, there must in turn be public disorder. Mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects ‘law and order’ but before it can be said to affect ‘public order’, it must affect the community or the public at large”. It said that this may be a good ground for the state to appeal against the bail orders granted and/or to cancel bail but “certainly cannot provide the springboard to move under a preventive detention statute”. “When a person is preventively detained, it is Article 21 and 22 that are attracted and not Article 19. Further, preventive detention must fall within the four corners of Article 21 read with Article 22 and the statute in question,” it added. The top court said that to therefore argue that a liberal meaning must be given to the expression ‘public order’ in the context of a preventive detention statute is wholly inapposite and incorrect. “On the contrary, considering that preventive detention is a necessary evil only to prevent public disorder, the Court must ensure that the facts brought before it directly and inevitably lead to a harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof at large,” it added. SC asks States to respond to plea that says citizens are still being booked under Section 66A of IT Act The Supreme Court on Monday asked States to respond to a petition that citizens continue to get booked and prosecuted under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for expressing themselves freely on social media. Section 66A was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a judgment in 2015. A Bench led by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman said State governments, which control the police force, had to answer for this violation of the Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court said the judiciary could be reined in from wrongly charging under Section 66A, but the cooperation of the States was necessary to put the brakes on the police from registering FIRs under Section 66A. The court said it intended to pass a wholistic order after hearing the States. The court listed the case after four weeks. On July 5 this year, Justice Nariman had found it “distressing”, “shocking” and “terrible” that people were still booked and tried under Section 66A even six years after the Supreme Court struck down the provision as unconstitutional and a violation of free speech. An NGO, People’s Union of Civil Liberties, represented by senior advocate Sanjay Parikh and advocate Aparna Bhat, had drawn the court’s attention to the violations. Justice Nariman had authored the judgment, trashing Section 66A in a petition filed by law student Shreya Singhal, who highlighted cases of young people being arrested and charged under the ambiguous provision for their social media posts. In its response, the Centre said the police and public order were “State subjects” under the Constitution. “Prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of crimes and capacity-building of the police are primarily the responsibility of the States,” the Centre submitted in an affidavit to the Supreme Court. It said law enforcement agencies shared equal responsibility to comply with the Supreme Court judgment. They took action against cyber-crime offenders as per the law. Section 66A had prescribed three years’ imprisonment if a social media message caused “annoyance” or was found “grossly offensive”. The Supreme Court had concluded the provision to be vague and worded arbitrarily. Justice Nariman had agreed with Parikh on July 7 that the “state of affairs is shocking”. In Rajya Sabha, Opposition raises farm bills along with Pegasus Opposition protest continued to disrupt the proceedings of the Rajya Sabja for the 10th consecutive day on Monday, with the parties raising objections to the three controversial farm laws besides the Pegasus ‘cyberattack’. While the Trinamool Congress (TMC) continued with the protest on Pegasus, the Congress, Left and others raised a demand to scrap the farm bills. The protests led to two adjournments, and the Inland Vessels Bill, 2021, was passed amid din. The TMC, Congress, SP and the Left parties were in the well of the House, while the NCP, Shiv Sena and the RJD stood at their seats in protest. Many members, sources said, felt that taking a militant position on Pegasus had left other issues unheard. Meanwhile, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh dialled Mallikarjun Kharge, leader of the Opposition in the House. Sources said it was just a courtesy call. No offer of an all-party meeting on Pegasus was made by Singh. “The Opposition parties want Parliament to run and discuss three important issues. A: Withdraw the farm bills and have a discussion on the ongoing agitation by farmers. B: we need a discussion on the state of the economy and unemployment. C: National Security that is Pegasus. But we have to start with C,” TMC floor leader Derek O’Brien said. All the 15 parties who attended the morning meeting of Opposition parties were all on the same page, he asserted. The Congress though is still uncomfortable with this position. Sources said that they wanted to pause the protests to be able to participate in the debate on the Inland Vessels Bill. But with raucous protests from the TMC, Congress MP Shakti Sinh Gohil, who was designated to speak on the Bill, could not raise his concerns. The Congress did not join the others in the well of the House once the Bill was taken up for discussion. Ports, Shipping and Waterways Minister Sarbananda Sonowal said the Bill would “bring uniformity in application of laws relating to inland waterways and navigation within the country”. The Bill was passed as the Opposition members shouted “no” from the well of the House. As the Opposition continued to protest, the House was adjourned for an hour, only to resume for a few minutes before being adjourned for the day. CJI offers to send Andhra-Telangana Krishna water dispute for mediation Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana on Monday offered to send a water dispute case filed by Andhra Pradesh against Telangana for mediation while saying, in the background of the Assam-Manipur border flare-up, that the people of the two southern States were “brothers” and should not even “dream” of doing harm to each other. The CJI’s remark came in response to an indirect allusion made by senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Andhra Pradesh, to the Assam-Manipur violence. “Looking at what happened in the northeast...” Dave began. Immediately interjecting at this point, Chief Justice Ramana said, “Do not think like that even in your dreams... We are all brothers”. During the hearing, Chief Justice Ramana said he hailed from both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. He could not adjudicate the case legally. So, the CJI gave the parties an option. “If you want to settle the issue through mediation, I will send it for mediation. On the other hand, if you want the case to be adjudicated or to be heard legally, I will list it before another Bench,” Chief Justice Ramana addressed the parties. Dave said the CJI’s suggestion was “eminently fair”. The senior lawyer said this was a “political issue” and sought time to get instructions from the State government. The case concerned Andhra Pradesh’s petition accusing Telangana of depriving its people of their legitimate share of water for drinking and irrigation. Andhra Pradesh said Telangana was refusing to follow decisions taken on river water management in the Apex Council constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014. It had also ignored the directions of Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) constituted under the 2014 Act and the Central government. “Fundamental rights, including right to life of its citizens, are being seriously impaired and infringed on account of unconstitutional, illegal and unjust acts on part of State of Telangana and its officials, resulting in the citizens of the State of Andhra Pradesh being deprived of their legitimate share of water for drinking and irrigation purposes,” the petition said. Indian women create history, enter Olympic hockey semifinals for first time The Indian women’s hockey team scripted history on August 2 qualifying for the Olympic Games semifinals for the first time, beating three-time champions Australia by a solitary goal here. A day after the Indian men’s team entered the Olympic semifinals following a 41-year gap, the world no. 9 women’s side also entered the history books with a phenomenally gritty performance. Coming into the match, the odds were against India as world no. 2 Australia, a mighty unbeaten opponent, awaited them in the last-eight round. The Indian side, determined to prove a point, produced a strong and brave performance to eke out the narrow win over the Hockeyroos. Drag-flicker Gurjit Kaur rose to the occasion when it mattered and converted India’s lone penalty corner in the 22nd minute to surprise the Australians. India’s best performance in the Olympics came way back in the 1980 Moscow Games where they finished fourth out of six teams. In that edition of the Games, women’s hockey made its debut in the Olympics and the sport was played in a round-robin format with top two teams qualifying for the final. The Rani Rampal-led side will play Argentina in the semifinal on August 4. Covid Watch: Numbers and Developments The number of reported coronavirus cases from India stood at 3,17,03,933 at the time of publishing this newsletter, with the death toll at 4,24,991. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 02 AUGUST 2021 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( Preventive detention only if detenu affects or likely to affect public order: SC The Supreme Court on Monday said a preventive detention order can only be passed if the activities of the detenu affects or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order, PTI reported. The court said this as it quashed the Telangana government’s detention order against a man, booked in several criminal cases related to fraud and forgery, saying that for ‘public order’ to be disturbed, “there must in turn be public disorder”, affecting the society at large. A close reading of the detention order, under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (TPDAA), makes it clear that it was issued not on any apprehension of widespread public harm, danger or alarm but only because the detenu was successful in obtaining anticipatory bail/bail from the Courts in each of the five FIRs against him, the apex court said. A bench of Justices R F Nariman and B R Gavai allowed the appeal against the Telangana High Court order, dismissing the plea filed by a woman challenging the detention order passed against her husband under the TPDAA. It said that while it cannot seriously be disputed that the detenu may be a “white collar offender” as defined under provisions of TPDAA, yet a preventive detention order can only be passed if his activities adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order. The bench noted that a public order as defined under the Act is to be a harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave widespread danger to life or public health. Multiple FIRs were lodged against the woman’s husband for cheating, fraud and criminal breach of trust but he had been successful in getting anticipatory bail/bail in all the cases against him. “We, therefore, quash the detention order on this ground. Consequently, it is unnecessary to go into any of the other grounds argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner. The impugned judgment is set aside and the Detenu is ordered to be freed forthwith. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed,” the bench said. It said that in the facts of this case, it is clear that at the highest, a possible apprehension of breach of law and order can be said to be made out if it is apprehended that the detenu, if set free, will continue to cheat gullible persons. “There can be no doubt that for ‘public order’ to be disturbed, there must in turn be public disorder. Mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects ‘law and order’ but before it can be said to affect ‘public order’, it must affect the community or the public at large”. It said that this may be a good ground for the state to appeal against the bail orders granted and/or to cancel bail but “certainly cannot provide the springboard to move under a preventive detention statute”. “When a person is preventively detained, it is Article 21 and 22 that are attracted and not Article 19. Further, preventive detention must fall within the four corners of Article 21 read with Article 22 and the statute in question,” it added. The top court said that to therefore argue that a liberal meaning must be given to the expression ‘public order’ in the context of a preventive detention statute is wholly inapposite and incorrect. “On the contrary, considering that preventive detention is a necessary evil only to prevent public disorder, the Court must ensure that the facts brought before it directly and inevitably lead to a harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof at large,” it added. [underlineimg] SC asks States to respond to plea that says citizens are still being booked under Section 66A of IT Act The [Supreme Court on Monday asked States to respond to a petition that citizens]( continue to get booked and prosecuted under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for expressing themselves freely on social media. Section 66A was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a judgment in 2015. A Bench led by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman said State governments, which control the police force, had to answer for this violation of the Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court said the judiciary could be reined in from wrongly charging under Section 66A, but the cooperation of the States was necessary to put the brakes on the police from registering FIRs under Section 66A. The court said it intended to pass a wholistic order after hearing the States. The court listed the case after four weeks. On July 5 this year, Justice Nariman had found it “distressing”, “shocking” and “terrible” that people were still booked and tried under Section 66A even six years after the Supreme Court struck down the provision as unconstitutional and a violation of free speech. An NGO, People’s Union of Civil Liberties, represented by senior advocate Sanjay Parikh and advocate Aparna Bhat, had drawn the court’s attention to the violations. Justice Nariman had authored the judgment, trashing Section 66A in a petition filed by law student Shreya Singhal, who highlighted cases of young people being arrested and charged under the ambiguous provision for their social media posts. In its response, the Centre said the police and public order were “State subjects” under the Constitution. “Prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of crimes and capacity-building of the police are primarily the responsibility of the States,” the Centre submitted in an affidavit to the Supreme Court. It said law enforcement agencies shared equal responsibility to comply with the Supreme Court judgment. They took action against cyber-crime offenders as per the law. Section 66A had prescribed three years’ imprisonment if a social media message caused “annoyance” or was found “grossly offensive”. The Supreme Court had concluded the provision to be vague and worded arbitrarily. Justice Nariman had agreed with Parikh on July 7 that the “state of affairs is shocking”. [underlineimg] In Rajya Sabha, Opposition raises farm bills along with Pegasus Opposition protest continued to disrupt the [proceedings of the Rajya Sabja for the 10th consecutive day on Monday]( with the parties raising objections to the three controversial farm laws besides the Pegasus ‘cyberattack’. While the Trinamool Congress (TMC) continued with the protest on Pegasus, the Congress, Left and others raised a demand to scrap the farm bills. The protests led to two adjournments, and the Inland Vessels Bill, 2021, was passed amid din. [Parliamentarians in the Rajya Sabha during the monsoon session of Parliament, in New Delhi on August 2, 2021.]  The TMC, Congress, SP and the Left parties were in the well of the House, while the NCP, Shiv Sena and the RJD stood at their seats in protest. Many members, sources said, felt that taking a militant position on Pegasus had left other issues unheard. Meanwhile, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh dialled Mallikarjun Kharge, leader of the Opposition in the House. Sources said it was just a courtesy call. No offer of an all-party meeting on Pegasus was made by Singh. “The Opposition parties want Parliament to run and discuss three important issues. A: Withdraw the farm bills and have a discussion on the ongoing agitation by farmers. B: we need a discussion on the state of the economy and unemployment. C: National Security that is Pegasus. But we have to start with C,” TMC floor leader Derek O’Brien said. All the 15 parties who attended the morning meeting of Opposition parties were all on the same page, he asserted. The Congress though is still uncomfortable with this position. Sources said that they wanted to pause the protests to be able to participate in the debate on the Inland Vessels Bill. But with raucous protests from the TMC, Congress MP Shakti Sinh Gohil, who was designated to speak on the Bill, could not raise his concerns. The Congress did not join the others in the well of the House once the Bill was taken up for discussion. Ports, Shipping and Waterways Minister Sarbananda Sonowal said the Bill would “bring uniformity in application of laws relating to inland waterways and navigation within the country”. The Bill was passed as the Opposition members shouted “no” from the well of the House. As the Opposition continued to protest, the House was adjourned for an hour, only to resume for a few minutes before being adjourned for the day. [underlineimg] CJI offers to send Andhra-Telangana Krishna water dispute for mediation [Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana on Monday offered to send a water dispute case]( filed by Andhra Pradesh against Telangana for mediation while saying, in the background of the Assam-Manipur border flare-up, that the people of the two southern States were “brothers” and should not even “dream” of doing harm to each other. The CJI’s remark came in response to an indirect allusion made by senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Andhra Pradesh, to the Assam-Manipur violence. “Looking at what happened in the northeast...” Dave began. Immediately interjecting at this point, Chief Justice Ramana said, “Do not think like that even in your dreams... We are all brothers”. During the hearing, Chief Justice Ramana said he hailed from both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. He could not adjudicate the case legally. So, the CJI gave the parties an option. “If you want to settle the issue through mediation, I will send it for mediation. On the other hand, if you want the case to be adjudicated or to be heard legally, I will list it before another Bench,” Chief Justice Ramana addressed the parties. Dave said the CJI’s suggestion was “eminently fair”. The senior lawyer said this was a “political issue” and sought time to get instructions from the State government. The case concerned Andhra Pradesh’s petition accusing Telangana of depriving its people of their legitimate share of water for drinking and irrigation. Andhra Pradesh said Telangana was refusing to follow decisions taken on river water management in the Apex Council constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014. It had also ignored the directions of Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) constituted under the 2014 Act and the Central government. “Fundamental rights, including right to life of its citizens, are being seriously impaired and infringed on account of unconstitutional, illegal and unjust acts on part of State of Telangana and its officials, resulting in the citizens of the State of Andhra Pradesh being deprived of their legitimate share of water for drinking and irrigation purposes,” the petition said. [underlineimg] Indian women create history, enter Olympic hockey semifinals for first time The [Indian women’s hockey team scripted history on August 2]( qualifying for the Olympic Games semifinals for the first time, beating three-time champions Australia by a solitary goal here. [Indian women hockey players celebrate their victory against Australia in the quarterfinal at the Tokyo Olympics 2020, in Tokyo on August 2, 2021.]  A day after the Indian men’s team entered the Olympic semifinals following a 41-year gap, the world no. 9 women’s side also entered the history books with a phenomenally gritty performance. Coming into the match, the odds were against India as world no. 2 Australia, a mighty unbeaten opponent, awaited them in the last-eight round. The Indian side, determined to prove a point, produced a strong and brave performance to eke out the narrow win over the Hockeyroos. Drag-flicker Gurjit Kaur rose to the occasion when it mattered and converted India’s lone penalty corner in the 22nd minute to surprise the Australians. India’s best performance in the Olympics came way back in the 1980 Moscow Games where they finished fourth out of six teams. In that edition of the Games, women’s hockey made its debut in the Olympics and the sport was played in a round-robin format with top two teams qualifying for the final. The Rani Rampal-led side will play Argentina in the semifinal on August 4. [underlineimg] Covid Watch: Numbers and Developments The [number of reported coronavirus cases from India]( at 3,17,03,933 at the time of publishing this newsletter, with the death toll at 4,24,991. [underlineimg] Evening Wrap will return tomorrow.  Today's Top Picks [[India at Tokyo Olympics so far: what went wrong, and what we got right | In Focus podcast] India at Tokyo Olympics so far: what went wrong, and what we got right | In Focus podcast]( [[Researchers use AI to look for alien civilisations] Researchers use AI to look for alien civilisations]( [[e-RUPI | How India’s new welfare-focused digital payment system works?] e-RUPI | How India’s new welfare-focused digital payment system works?]( [[Madras legislature sowed seeds of representative democracy: President] Madras legislature sowed seeds of representative democracy: President]( Copyright @ 2021, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](