The Telangana High Court has firmly upheld the preventive detention of an individual repeatedly found selling Illicitly Distilled Liquor (IDL) unfit for human consumption, terming the act a grave threat to public order under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986.
The judgment was delivered by the Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao on June 20, 2025, in response to a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the detenu’s wife, Dharavath Laxmi. She challenged the detention orders dated November 25, 2024, and its confirmation on December 23, 2024, claiming that the alleged offences only disturbed “law and order” and not “public order.”
Read Also:- Telangana High Court: Grants Bail to Gali Janardhan Reddy in Obulapuram Mining Scam Case
Public Health and Preventive Detention
The Court rejected this argument, highlighting that Section 2(a) of the 1986 Act, clearly brings within its scope any act causing “grave or widespread danger to life or public health.” In this context, the repeated distribution of IDL – which was chemically tested and proven “unfit for human consumption and injurious to health” – was deemed sufficient to justify preventive detention.
“The very fact that the samples... were chemically-analyzed and found to be ‘unfit for human consumption’ and ‘injurious to health’... brings the act squarely within the contours of the Explanation to Section 2(a),” the Bench noted.
The Court observed that the detenu had been involved in multiple offences between 2022 and 2024. In four key cases, significant quantities of IDL were seized, with each chemical report confirming the presence of hazardous substances. The Bench emphasized that such persistent behavior created fear and insecurity among the public and posed a “widespread danger to public health.”
“If this is not destabilizing of public order, then nothing is,” the Court remarked while noting the potential consequences for vulnerable communities who may fall prey to the dangers of spurious liquor.
Read Also:- Supreme Court to Hear Telangana Domicile Quota Case for MBBS Admissions on June 2
The judgment reaffirmed the legal distinction between “law and order” and “public order.” While individual disturbances might fall under the former, repeated actions endangering community health and safety elevate the concern to a public order issue. The sale of IDL, due to its nature and effect, qualified under this broader category
Reference to Supreme Court Ruling
The Bench relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, where similar facts led to the dismissal of the detenu’s plea. The High Court noted that the current case mirrored the earlier one, especially since all seized samples failed health tests, justifying the detention as per legal precedent.
Duty of Authorities and Timely Investigation
While supporting the detention, the Court also directed state authorities to complete the pending investigations by December 31, 2025. It reminded them of the Supreme Court’s caution against using preventive detention mechanically or as a substitute for timely prosecution.
“The detenu should not be detained for an inordinately long period on the pretext of pending investigation,” the Court cautioned.
In dismissing the writ petition, the Telangana High Court upheld the necessity and legality of the preventive detention, stating that the act of selling spurious liquor, which endangers lives and public health, fits squarely under the 1986 Act's provisions.
Case Title- Dharavath Laxmi v. The State of Telangana and Others (Case Number: W.P.NO.2133 of 2025)
