Court holds that an offence under the NDPS Act cannot be used to classify a detenu as a “Goonda” under the 1986 Preventive Detention Act; one invalid ground was enough to invalidate the detention.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside the preventive detention of Regulla Karthik, holding that the detention order was vitiated because one of the six criminal cases relied upon by the authorities was under the NDPS Act and did not fall within the statutory definition of a “Goonda” under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar allowed the writ petition filed by the detenu’s relative and quashed both the detention order dated 20 November 2025 and the confirmation order dated 19 January 2026.
The petitioner argued that while the detention was based on six criminal cases, ground No. 3 related to an NDPS Act offence, which does not fall under Chapters XVI, XVII or XXII of the Indian Penal Code. Since Section 2(g) of the 1986 Act defines a “Goonda” only with reference to offences under those IPC chapters, the NDPS case could not legally be considered for preventive detention under that category. It was further contended that inclusion of this irrelevant ground had tainted the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
The State conceded that the offence in ground No. 3 did not fall within the relevant IPC chapters, but argued that the detention could still be sustained on the remaining grounds. The Court rejected this submission.
Referring to Section 2(g) of the Act, the Bench held that a person can be treated as a “Goonda” only if he habitually commits offences punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII or XXII of the IPC. Since the NDPS offence relied upon in ground No. 3 was outside that definition, it was irrelevant material for the purpose of invoking preventive detention under Section 3 of the Act.
The Court relied on earlier decisions, including M. Hemalatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, S. Prasad Reddy v. Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur, Thallapuneni Venkateswarlu v. Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddapah, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Khaja Bilala Ahmed v. State of Telangana. These authorities reaffirmed that consideration of irrelevant material while forming subjective satisfaction renders a detention order illegal.
The Bench also cited Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar v. State of M.P., reiterating that a single vicious or invalid ground is sufficient to vitiate a detention order. It noted that unlike the PITNDPS Act, the Andhra Pradesh Act does not contain a provision like Section 6, which can save an order based on multiple grounds even if one ground fails.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the detention order could not survive because it had been founded in part on an impermissible and irrelevant ground. The Court directed that the detenu be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Bottom Line :
Preventive detention under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 treating detenu as a “Goonda” cannot be sustained when one of the grounds considered is an offence under the NDPS Act, which does not fall within Chapters XVI, XVII or XXII of IPC and is therefore irrelevant material under Section 2(g) of the Act - A single vicious ground is sufficient to vitiate the detention order.
Statutory provision(s): Section 2(g), Section 3(1), Section 3(2), Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Regulla Ramana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (AP)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2984509
