Telangana BJP MLA Raja Singh’s wife appeals to HC to quash detention order

BJP MLA T Raja Singh’s wife Usha Bhai has filed a habeas corpus petition in Telangana High Court with a prayer that the order under which her husband had been arrested under Preventive Detention proceedings, dated August 25, as approved by the Principal Secretary, GAD (Law & Order), be declared as unlawful, arbitrary, contrary to law, and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India in addition to the rules outlined in the Preventive Detention Act.

The petitioner argued that the Commissioner of Police in Hyderabad is aware that the detainee was granted bail in the primary case brought against him and that the other cases against him are not legally tenable, and that the current detention order was only passed with the intent to harass the detainee and restrict his fundamental rights.

Additionally, it was stated that the situation can be handled by the penal laws and that using the preventive detention provisions was wholly unnecessary. As a result, the detaining authority made a mistake when it issued the order of detention against the detainee, particularly a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly.

She added that the detention order issued by the detaining authority labelling him a goonda and that it is illogical and unlawful to keep him from engaging in dangerous activities in the future. The detainee will not meet the aforementioned requirements, and the detention order lacks any evidence to support or refute the claims that the detainee is a goonda as defined by Section 2 (g) of the PD Act. Instead, the detention order reads that the detainee made provocative speeches about the community for which a separate law is intended to address. As a result, the detention order may be revoked.

The manner in which all of the cases against him were brought against him, it was further stated, clearly raises doubts about the veracity of the accusations. In addition to breaking the PD Act’s mandatory requirements, the respondents did not adhere to the principles and directives issued by this court and the Apex Court. 

The petitioner further argued that the detention authority had failed to provide documents in the detainees’ native tongue. This claim was brought to the attention of the respondents’ authorities, who later served the documents in the detainees’ native tongue after realising their error and filling in their gaps, which is enough to nullify the detention order.