Preventive Detention Cases
🔍 I. What Is Preventive Detention?
Preventive detention means detaining a person without trial, not for what they have done, but to prevent them from doing something in the future.
It’s used to maintain public order, national security, or prevent smuggling, etc.
In India, preventive detention is allowed under:
Article 22(3)-(7) of the Constitution, and
Laws like:
National Security Act (NSA), 1980,
Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (now repealed),
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), 1974,
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
II. Key Constitutional Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Article 22(1)-(2) | Applies to regular arrests: Right to be informed of grounds, consult a lawyer, and be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. |
| Article 22(3)-(7) | Allows preventive detention, limits above rights, but includes some safeguards. |
| Max duration | Up to 3 months without advisory board review. Can be extended to 12 months with review. |
III. Landmark Preventive Detention Case Law
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts:
Communist leader A.K. Gopalan was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
He challenged it under Articles 19 and 21.
Judgment:
The majority upheld the law.
Held that Article 21 (life and liberty) was separate from Article 19 (freedom).
Detention was valid as per the procedure established by law.
Significance:
Early case; gave wide powers to the state.
Later overruled by Maneka Gandhi (1978) — a more rights-based approach.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded without a reason under the Passport Act.
Judgment:
SC ruled that “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be just, fair and reasonable.
Overruled Gopalan.
Significance:
Strengthened personal liberty.
Set the stage for stricter judicial scrutiny of preventive detention laws.
3. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Facts:
The case dealt with the right to privacy and Aadhaar.
Judgment:
Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
The judgment implied stricter scrutiny of preventive detention when it invades privacy or liberty.
Significance:
Reinforces limits on arbitrary detentions.
Any preventive detention must pass the test of proportionality.
4. Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011)
Facts:
Rekha was detained under the Preventive Detention Act because her husband allegedly sold spurious drugs.
Judgment:
SC struck down the detention.
Held that “subjective satisfaction” of the detaining authority must have a real, rational basis.
Significance:
Strong warning against vague or unjustified detentions.
Showed that courts can review detention orders.
5. Alijav v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (1984)
Facts:
Detention challenged on the ground that the detaining authority did not apply its mind.
Judgment:
Court ruled that if grounds of detention are not clearly linked to preventive intent, detention is invalid.
Significance:
Affirmed need for real-time application of mind.
Routine or mechanical detentions won't pass judicial review.
6. Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah (1985)
Facts:
Detention of a person already in jail under preventive detention laws.
Judgment:
Court said detention of a person already in custody must show a real possibility of release and of acting prejudicially thereafter.
Significance:
Prevents misuse of preventive detention to bypass bail.
Established test for “likelihood of release” + “future threat”.
7. Union of India v. Paul Manickam (2003)
Facts:
Detention under NSA was challenged.
Judgment:
Held that preventive detention must be based on credible, relevant, and proximate materials.
Significance:
Reiterated judicial safeguards.
Courts can quash detentions if delay or irrelevance is found in grounds.
IV. Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Outcome | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan (1950) | Constitutionality of detention | Detention upheld | Early support for state power |
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Liberty and due process | Rights expanded | Made detention laws challengeable |
| Rekha (2011) | Detention of spouse of accused | Struck down | Vague reasons not enough |
| Ramesh Yadav (1985) | Detention while already jailed | Quashed | Must show risk of release |
| Alijav (1984) | Non-application of mind | Quashed | Application of mind is vital |
| Paul Manickam (2003) | NSA detention | Upheld with conditions | Grounds must be proximate, relevant |
V. Conclusion
Preventive detention is a powerful tool but also dangerous if unchecked. Courts have:
Recognized individual liberty as central under Article 21,
Allowed preventive detention, but only with strict safeguards,
Emphasized application of mind, proximity of evidence, and non-mechanical decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments