While upholding a detention order passed against a habitual offender involved in selling drugs, the Telangana High Court has held that public health and safety form an essential part of the constitutional vision under Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution, and any activity that endangers public health and safety, particularly through the spread of narcotic substances, strikes at the very root of societal stability.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus for setting the detenu at liberty and for declaring the detention order as illegal.

The Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar observed, “Public health and safety forms an essential part of the constitutional vision under Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India. The wealth of a nation ultimately depends upon the health and well-being of its citizens. Any activity that endangers public health and safety, particularly through the spread of narcotic substances, strikes at the very root of societal stability.While the petitioner, being the daughter of the detenu, has approached this Court out of concern for her mother, it must be borne in mind that the conduct of a parent engaged in illegal activities not only affects the family’s welfare but also has a widespread impact on the community and society at large.”

Advocate Ravinder represented the Petitioner, while Special Government Pleader Swaroop Oorilla represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petition was filed by the daughter of the detenu, who was detained at Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. The impugned detention order was passed under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticides Offenders, Fertilizer Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 on the ground that the detenu was involved in offences of peddling of Ganja, a narcotic drug in the limits of Hyderabad and thereby she was a drug offender.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the impugned detention order was passed against the detenu based on three crimes registered against her, which fell within the meaning of ‘drug offender’ as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. It was further noticed that the detenu was repeatedly involved in the offences of selling and distributing ganja, which adversely affected the public order, more particularly in respect of downtrodden people and youth in the Society.

It was further noticed that the Report of the Government Chemical Examiner substantiated that the contraband seized from the accused was ‘Ganja’, and as to how the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and Public Health. The Detaining Authority had satisfied that the activities of the detenu were creating a serious threat to Society.

“These activities not just affect the health of the younger generation, but also creates law and order problems. Thereby acting in the interest of public order and public health at large in Society and having felt that, launching of prosecution against the detenu in normal law would not have desired effect in preventing the detenu in any manner from prejudicial to maintaining the public order and public health”, the Bench noticed while also adding, “On perusal of the material placed on record, the repeated and wellplanned actions of the detenu are sufficient to raise the presumption of threat and alarm amongst the general public regarding their health, which is the primary criteria for maintaining the peace, law and order in the Society.”

The Bench was of the view that the detenu, who is a habitual offender involved in selling ganja, can be given an opportunity to reform herself during the period of preventive detention, considering that her conduct has been detrimental to public order and societal well-being.

Finding no reason to differ from the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority as expressed in the Grounds of Detention, the Bench upheld the order of detention and dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Roshni Devi v. State of Telangana (Case No.: Writ Petition No.12443 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Ravinder

Respondent: Special Government Pleader Swaroop Oorilla

Click here to read/download Order


Telangana High CourtJustice Moushumi BhattacharyaJustice Gadi Praveen Kumar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.