Roshini Devi v. State of Telangana 2026 INSC 41 - Preventive Detention - Bail Apprehension

Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders [Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser 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 - Mere apprehension on the part of the detaining authority that in the event of the detenu being released on bail, she was likely to indulge in similar crimes that would be prejudicial to maintenance of public order would not be a sufficient ground to order her preventive detention - Mere reproduction of the expressions mentioned in Section 2(a) of the Act of 1986 in the order of detention would not be sufficient. The detention order ought to indicate the recording of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in that regard.- There is a fine distinction between “law and order” and “public order”. 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 under the Act of 1986.  (Para 9-10)

Summary: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Roshini Devi, quashing her mother’s preventive detention under the Telangana Act of 1986 because the detaining authority failed to show how her alleged drug-related activities affected public order rather than merely law and order. The Court criticized reliance on bail apprehensions and past history without taking ordinary-law measures like bail cancellation, citing precedents that preventive detention is an extraordinary remedy requiring specific, relevant material and genuine subjective satisfaction. It set aside the High Court’s dismissal, ordered the detenu’s release if not wanted elsewhere, and emphasized the distinction between public order and law and order.