Article 21- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty

except according to the procedure established by law.

Debate on “procedure established by law” v/s “due process of law”:

1. Some argued that “procedure established by law” would give the

legislation the power to pass laws that would violate individual
liberties.
2. If the term due process was used, it would give unelected judges
(who have biases of their own) the power to undermine the
legislature by passing judgments on lawfully enacted legislation.

“The courts, manned by an irremovable judiciary not so

sensitive to public needs in the social or economic sphere as
the representatives of a periodically elected legislature, will,
in effect, have a veto on legislation exercisable at any time
and at the instance of any litigant.”

Ak Gopalan v State of Madras:

He was imprisoned due to various pending allegations; in 1950, a fresh

order of preventive detention was passed against him. He filed a writ of
habeas corpus.

Issues:

1. Whether laws relating to preventive detention infringe the

fundamental right to freedom of movement.

2. Whether Article 22 constitutes a complete code governing

preventive detention.

3. Whether the expressions “law” and “procedure established by law”

in Article 21 include principles of natural justice.

Held:

Any legislation not directly violating any article but indirectly

encroaching upon any articles of the Constitution does not mean that the
legislation is ultra vires. Law was interpreted as lex and not jus.

The ruling meant:

 There must be a law

 It should lay down a procedure

 The executive should follow the procedure while depriving a person

of his life or personal liberty.
Procedure connotes both the act and the manner of proceeding to take
away a man’s life or personal liberty.

Law depriving personal liberty has to conform with Article 20 and 22, but
not Article 19. Rejected the argument of Mutual Inclusivity and held that
Articles 19,21 and 22 are mutually exclusive.

Dissenting opinion:

Natural Justice in Article 21: The argument was that “procedure

established by law” in Article 21 must include basic principles of natural
justice—notice, hearing, impartial tribunal, and orderly procedure.
Without these, any law depriving liberty would be unconstitutional.

Preventive Detention & Article 19(1)(d): Preventive detention laws

directly restrict the freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d). Even if
narrowly construed, such laws must undergo judicial review under
Article 19(5) to test reasonableness.

Article 21 vs. Article 22: Article 22 provides specific safeguards for

preventive detention, but it is not exhaustive. Where Article 22 is silent,
Article 21 continues to apply.

 Parliament can enact additional provisions on preventive detention.

 These provisions must pass the reasonableness test under Article

19(5).

Kharak Singh v State of UP (include in right to privacy)

Under this classification, a series of surveillance measures was initiated.

These included secret picketing of his home and surrounding area,
domiciliary visits during night-0time, routine inquiries into his habits and
associations, shadowing his movements, and documentation through
police reports. Importantly, none of these actions was authorised by a
court order or formal legal process.

 The Supreme Court issued a split verdict in this case. The majority
opinion held that most of the surveillance provisions under the
challenged regulations did not infringe the fundamental rights of
the petitioner, which were guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21.

 However, the Court took exception to the clause permitting

domiciliary visits at night as unconstitutional.

MP Sharma v Satish Chandra

The Constitution does not include language similar to the Fourth

Amendment of the US Constitution, and found no justification to import
the concept of a fundamental right to privacy in search-and-seizures,
through what they called a ‘strained construction’. Thus, the court rules
that the search upon which the case is established could not be said to be
illegal and challenged on the same grounds on the basis that they violate
any fundamental rights of the petitioner. The court stated that the search
and seizures formed an essential part of the process established by the
law, and the applications that were filed against the same were liable to
be dismissed.

ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla

Majority Opinion (Chief Justice A.N. Ray and others)

 Held that once Article 21 was suspended, no person could

approach the courts to challenge detention.

 Even if detention was arbitrary or unlawful, courts had no

jurisdiction to intervene.

 Reasoning: “Procedure established by law” (MISA) was in force,

and with Article 21 suspended, there was no enforceable right to
liberty.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice H.R. Khanna)

 Asserted that Article 21 is not the sole repository of life and liberty.

 Even during Emergency, the State cannot deprive a person of life

or liberty without the authority of law.

 Article 21 loses only its procedural enforcement power, but the

substantive right to life and liberty remains fundamental.

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India

Held,

1. The court reiterated that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are mutually

inclusive. Any law that prescribes a procedure for depriving a
person’s right to liberty has to meet the requirements of Article 19,
and the procedure established by it has to conform with Article 14
as well.

2. Personal Liberty given widest amplitude

3. Procedure established by law must be just, fair and reasonable.

(adopting due process of law into Article 21)

Justice Bhagwati, “The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well

as philosophically is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness,
pervades Article 14”.
The Golden Triangle of the Indian Constitution (Article 14, Article 19
and Article 21) signifies the interdependence and interconnected nature
of these three fundamental rights. They are mutually reinforcing and
provide a framework for protecting the basic rights and freedoms of all
individuals in India.

It reaffirmed that the right to travel abroad is part of the right to

personal liberty under Article 21 and can only be restricted through a
lawful, fair, and reasonable procedure.

Nand Lal v State of Punjab

The court held that the arbitrary denial of legal representation to the
detenu, while allowing it for the state, was a manifest violation of the
equality clause enshrined in Article 14. The procedure was deemed
arbitrary because it was unequal and disadvantaged the detenu without
any rational basis.

RC Cooper v Union of India

Article 21’s “procedure established by law” must be tested against

Article 14’s principle of reasonableness. Only a fair, just, and
non-arbitrary procedure can constitutionally deprive someone of life or
liberty.

(This reiterated the doctrine of mutual inclusivity).

Dignity:

Olga Tellis v State of Bombay

Pavement dwellers to resist eviction from their habitat by the BMC, as

the right to livelihood is born out of the right to life, as no person can live
without a means of living, that is, the means of livelihood.

The State may not, by affirmative action, be compelled to provide

adequate means of livelihood or work to the citizens. But any person who
is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to the procedure
established by law, can challenge the deprivation as offending the right
to life conferred by Article 21.

Health and Medical Care:

Paramananda Katara v Union of India

The Court recognised that in medico-legal cases arising out of accidents,

doctors usually refuse to provide immediate medical aid to the victim
until legal formalities are completed, resulting in many casualties.

The Court clarified that preservation of life is of paramount importance.

It is the duty of doctors to preserve life, whether the person in question is
a criminal or an innocent. Article 21 casts on the State an obligation to
preserve life.

Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Orissa

In a country like ours, it may not be possible to have sophisticated

hospitals, but definitely, villages within their limitations can aspire to
have a Primary Health Centre. The government is required to assist
people, get treatment and lead a healthy life. Thereby, there is an
implication that the enforcement of the right to life is a duty of the state
and that this duty covers the provision of the right to primary health
care.

Shelter:

Chameli Singh v State of UP

"Shelter” is interpreted to mean more than just a physical space; it

encompasses a secure and decent environment, proper civic amenities,
clean surroundings, light, air, water, electricity, and sanitation.

Right to Die:

P Rathinam v Union of India

The petitioners had filed petitions challenging the constitutional validity

of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 309- attempt to commit
suicide

The Supreme Court drew a parallel between the other fundamental

rights, just as the right to freedom of speech under Article 19 gives the
right to speak but also includes the right not to speak, the right to life
under Article 21 includes the right not to live.

Thus, Section 309 was held to be unconstitutional.

Gian Kaur v State of Punjab

P Rathinam was overruled. The right to live is a natural right, whereas
suicide is an unnatural termination of life.

Aruna Shanbaug v Union of India

The Court reaffirmed that the right to die with dignity was a fundamental
right.

While allowing for passive euthanasia, the Court held that Gian Kaur did
not express any binding opinion with respect to passive euthanasia.

“It was held in Gian Kaur that there is no right to die under Article 21 of
the Constitution and the right to life includes the right to live with human
dignity, but in the case of a dying person who is terminally ill or in a
permanent vegetative state, he may be allowed a premature extinction of
his life, and it would not amount to a crime”.

Common Cause v Union of India

Right to execute Advance Medical Directives or living wills- A legal

document that allows individuals to specify their preferences for medical
treatment in situations where they may become incapacitated, vegetative
state or unable to communicate their decisions.

The executor of the will must be an adult of sound mind. The document
must be witnessed and authenticated by witnesses and countersigned by
a Judicial Magistrate. The Judicial Magistrate is required to keep a copy
of this document in their office. A copy must be forwarded to the registry
for record-keeping. If the executor becomes terminally ill or enters a
vegetative state, the treating physician must inform a Medical Board,
which will assess the patient’s condition and determine whether to
honour the living will.

Environment:

Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration stated that:

Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate

conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of
dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect
and improve the environment for present and future generations.

Insertion of Article 48-A to Part IV of the Constitution, which covers

Directive Principles of State Policy. The State shall endeavour to protect
and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of
the country.
Insertion of Article 51A(g) imposed a duty on every citizen to protect
and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and
wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of UP

The petitioner, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK), an NGO,

wrote a letter to the Supreme Court complaining about illegal limestone
quarrying in the Mussoorie–Dehradun region.

The Court treated the letter as a writ petition under Article 32.

The right to live in a healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the

Constitution was first recognised in this case. It is the first case of this
kind in India, involving issues relating to environment and ecological
balance, in which the Supreme Court directed to stop the excavation
(illegal mining) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

MC Mehta v Kamal Nath

Right to Environmental Protection- Art 21 read with Art 48(A), Art 51A(g)
and Art 47

Any disturbance of basic environmental elements, namely Air, water, and

soil that are necessary for life, would be hazardous to life within the
meaning of Article 21

Public Trust Doctrine– The State is considered the trustee for the public’s
benefit, ensuring no exploitation is done.

Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar

The right to a pollution-free environment is a right under the right to life.

MK Ranjitsinh v Union of India- Right to be free from adverse effects of

climate change

The right to a clean environment, which comes within the ambit of

Article 21 of the Constitution, is threatened by climate change.

Article 14 would also be violated as climate change will affect some

people more than others. The SC, for the first time, recognised the right
to a healthy environment and the right to be free from the adverse effects
of climate change.

Privacy:

1. Physical and spatial autonomy- Protects private spaces or zones

where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy from outside
interference.
 2. Bodily and decisional autonomy- Protects bodily integrity
against physical and psychological intrusions into our bodies and
minds. We also have the right to make our own choices.
3. Informational autonomy- Control over how information about
oneself is used and shared without coercion and compulsion

Dissenting opinion in Kharak Singh v State of UP

The right to life and personal liberties under Article 21 protected against
any encroachments on personal liberties, whether direct or indirect. The
right to privacy was to be considered a fundamental right under Article
21, even though the Constitution did not expressly provide for it. He
argued further that the supervision of one’s private life as provided in the
regulations clearly violated this right.

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India

The Court held that telephone tapping constitutes a grave intrusion of an

individual’s privacy. While it is acknowledged that every government,
even a democratic one, may undertake covert operations as part of its
intelligence framework, such actions must not override the citizen’s
interest in privacy, which must be safeguarded against abuse by state
authorities. The Court noted that Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885, specified when phone tapping could be allowed but lacked
proper procedural safeguards. Instead of striking it down, the Court
upheld the provision and laid down detailed guidelines to regulate
surveillance.

Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India

Facts:

The case originated from a challenge to the Aadhaar scheme

implemented by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The
petitioner argued that the collection of personal and sensitive
information violated the right to privacy and individual autonomy under
Article 21 of the Constitution.

Issues:

1. Whether the Right to Privacy is guaranteed under Part III of the

Constitution.
2. If privacy is a fundamental right, what is its nature and scope?

Arguments:

Petitioners-
The petitioners contended that the collection of personal data under the
Aadhaar scheme enabled state surveillance and violated the fundamental
right to privacy.

They argued that privacy is intrinsic to Article 21 (Right to life and

personal liberty) and includes:

 Protection against unauthorised data collection

 Personal autonomy in decision-making
 Protection from profiling and tracking

It was further argued that privacy forms part of the “golden triangle” of
Articles 14, 19, and 21. The petitioners also relied on international
instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
which recognise privacy as a fundamental human right.

Respondents-

The Union of India argued that the Right to Privacy is not a fundamental
right under the Constitution.

It relied on precedents such as M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, asserting

that the Court should follow established jurisprudence.

The respondents further contended that privacy is an ambiguous concept

and that any legal framework governing privacy should be enacted by
Parliament rather than developed through judicial interpretation.

Judgement:

Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. This decision

overruled MP Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent that they held that
the Constitution of India does not protect the right to privacy are
overruled.

The Court observed that the right to privacy is primarily derived from
Article 21. However, it is also supplemented by the values enshrined in
other fundamental rights. Therefore, it advocated for a holistic view of
fundamental rights.

Natural Rights: The Court acknowledged that certain rights are

not bestowed by the State but are inherited by a person by virtue of
being human. All individuals have natural rights, irrespective of
their class, economic status, gender or sexual orientation.
Significantly, the right to self-determination of sexual orientation
was also recognised as a natural right.
 India’s International Obligations: The Court urged India to
adhere to the international human rights regime. More specifically,
the Court noted that the right to privacy was guaranteed under
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article
21 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.

Like other rights in Part III of the Constitution, privacy too cannot be an
absolute right and its violation must, in addition to the test of due
process and procedure established by law, also factor in legitimate State
interests.

The Constitution must evolve to meet the aspirations and challenges of

the present and the future. In an age where information technology
governs virtually every aspect of our lives, the Courts must impart
meaning to the concept of individual liberty, particularly where an
overarching presence of State and non-State entities regulates aspects of
social existence which bear upon the freedom of an individual. Every
individual, irrespective of social or economic status, is entitled to the
intimacy and autonomy which privacy protects.

The three-fold tests of proportionality include:

 There must exist a valid law to justify an encroachment on

privacy.

 There must be a legitimate state aim to justify such a

restriction.

 The restriction must be proportionate to the object and

needs of the law.

This was also used in Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India, v Subhash

Chandra Agarwal

The Court noted that under the Right to Information Act, personal
information is protected from unwarranted invasion of privacy but may
be disclosed if a larger public interest justifies it. The Court further
clarified that the right to privacy includes both quantitative and
qualitative protections— covering what has already been disclosed and
what remains private. The emphasis of privacy law lies not just in the
content of the information, but in preventing illegal intrusions into
private rights.
Manohar Lal Sharma v Union of India

Pegasus spyware was repeatedly reported between 2019 and 2021 as

infiltrating devices through zero-click attacks, with investigations
showing hundreds of Indian targets across civil society and institutions.

Held: The importance of surveillance for intelligence gathering and the

need to possibly interfere with an individual’s privacy are acknowledged,
so long as there are sufficient statutory safeguards. The Bench cited
Daniel Solove.

“…protecting privacy need not be fatal to security measures; it merely

demands oversight and regulation. We can’t progress in the debate
between privacy and security because the debate itself is flawed.”

The Bench calls the concerns of privacy and freedom of the press ‘allied’.
If an individual believes they are being spied on, then there is a threat of
self-censorship, which is an ‘assault’ on the fourth pillar of democracy
(the press).

The Bench highlights the ‘chilling effect’ such surveillance would have on
free speech and the freedom of the press. Further, they state that
journalistic sources must also be protected. These two considerations
serve as the basis for the Court deciding to hear the matter.

NALSA v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438

Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is entitled

to enjoy protection from unlawful attacks on their honour and reputation,
which includes the choice to disclose or not to disclose information
relating to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Laxmibai Chandaragi B. v The State of Karnataka

The Court held that when two consenting adults decide to marry, they do
not need approval from their families or communities. It reaffirmed that
the freedom to choose one’s spouse is a fundamental component of the
right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India

The Supreme Court held that Section 377 of IPC was discriminatory
against the (LGBT) community, recognising that sexual orientation is an
intrinsic element of an individual’s identity, dignity and autonomy. It
found that the provision violated the rights to dignity, privacy and sexual
autonomy under Article 21, alongside other fundamental rights.
Article 21(A)- The State shall provide free and compulsory education to
all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the
State may, by law, determine. It was inserted through the 86th
Constitutional Amendment Act, 2010

Clause (k) was added to Article 51A- "It shall be the duty of every parent
or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or ward
between the age of six and fourteen years”.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India & Ors

The Right to education flows directly from the right to life. The right to
life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured
unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The state government
is under the obligation to endeavour to provide educational facilities at
all levels to its citizens.

Unni Krishnan v State of AP

The Supreme Court held that the Right to Education is implicit under
Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution. Recognised the right to free
education for children up to the age of 14 years and held that this
obligation is on the State. Beyond 14 years of age, the State is
responsible for providing education subject to its economic capacity
under Article 41 (DPSP).

The SC also struck down the practice of charging capitation fees and
upheld state regulations on admissions and fees in professional colleges.

Avinash Mehrotra v Union of India

Right to a safe school environment- fire safety audits.

Right of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Passed by the Parliament on 4/8/2009 and came into force in 2010.

Enacted to give effect to Article 21 A.

Features of the Act:

 It establishes basic standards for primary schools, outlaws the

operation of unrecognised institutions, and opposes admissions
fees and kid interviews during admission to government-aided
schools. Schools must meet certain infrastructure and teacher
qualification standards.

 It mentions the duties of the respective governments, the local

authorities and parents in ensuring the education of a child. It also
 specifies the sharing of the financial burden between the central
and state governments

 Section 12(1)- All schools (private, unaided, aided or special

category) must reserve 25% of their seats at the entry level for
students from the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and
disadvantaged groups.

 No detention policy till class 8- Later amended through the 2019

Act- Made it compulsory to conduct exams from Classes 5 and 8
and detain students who do not clear the exam.

 The Act provides for zero tolerance against the harassment and
discrimination of children. The prohibition of screening procedures
for admission ensures that there would be no discrimination
against children on the basis of caste, religion, gender, etc.

Article 22-

A. Protection against Arrest

(1) Information about grounds of arrest. Right to consult and be
defended by a lawyer of their choice.
(2) Production of an arrested person before a Magistrate within 24
hours, excluding time necessary for the journey from the place to the
court of the Magistrate.
(3) Non- application of Article 22(1) and (2)- [enemy alien] & [to any
person who is arrested or detained under any law for preventive
detention].

B. Preventive Detention

(4 a) Advisory Board

(5) Communication of grounds of detention

(5) Right to make representation

(6) Non-disclosure of facts affecting public interest

(7b) Maximum Period of detention

(7a) Laws Authorising Preventive Detention

What is arrest?
Arrest means the legal act of taking a person into custody by lawful
authority (usually the police) because that person is suspected of
committing a crime.

Elements of Arrest:

1. Intent

2. Authority

3. Seizure

4. Understanding

Custody or restraint of personal liberty and exercise of lawful authority

by the State.

Grounds of Arrest:

Joginder Kumar v. State of UP

Provided for critical safeguards to prevent arbitrary and protect personal

liberty under Article 21. It includes the right to inform, duty to inform the
accused, entry in the diary, judicial oversight and recording reasons.

DK Basu v State of WB

11 mandatory requirements-

1. Clear identification of the police

2. Arrest memo
3. Right to inform
4. Notification to outsiders
5. Information on rights
6. Diary entry
7. Inspection memo
8. Medical examination
9. Documents to Magistrate
10. Legal Counsel
11. Police Control Room

Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar

The Supreme Court of India addressed the growing issue of arbitrary

arrests under Section 498A of the IPC (Cruelty by husband or relatives).
The court famously noted that the law, intended as a "shield" for women,
was increasingly being used as a "weapon". Arnesh Kumar Guidelines
significantly limited the police's power to arrest without a warrant for
any offence punishable by 7 years or less.
 1. Police must not automatically arrest an individual when a case
under Section 498A IPC is registered. They must first satisfy
themselves that the arrest is necessary under the parameters of
Section 35 of the BNSS.

2. All police officers must be provided with a checklist containing the

sub-clauses of Section 35.

3. When producing an accused before a Magistrate for detention, the

police must forward the duly filled checklist and the specific
reasons/evidence that necessitated the arrest.

4. The Magistrate must not authorise detention "casually or

mechanically." They must review the police report and checklist
and can only authorise further detention if they are satisfied with
the recorded reasons.

5. If the police decide not to arrest a person, they must inform the
Magistrate in writing within two weeks of the case being filed.

6. In cases where an arrest is not required, a "Notice of Appearance"

(under Section 35(3) BNSS) must be served to the accused within
two weeks of filing the case.

7. Failure to comply with these guidelines renders the police officer

liable for departmental action and contempt of court proceedings in
the High Court.

8. Judicial Magistrates who authorise detention without recording

reasons or verifying the checklist are liable for departmental
proceedings by the High Court.
Satender Kumar Anil v CBI

Transformative ruling that institutionalises the principle of “bail not jail,”

ensuring that the state’s power to arrest is exercised cautiously and
judicial discretion in bail is guided by constitutional values of liberty and
fairness.

To be defended by a lawyer of his own choice:

Section 340 BNSS- guarantees the right of individuals accused of an

offence to be defended by an advocate of their choice, ensuring fair legal
representation in criminal proceedings.

This right is not to any lawyer but to effective assistance. This right
doesn't begin at the trial; it begins the moment a person is taken into
custody.
If the person accused of an offence has no legal representation, then it is
a constitutional obligation on the State to provide the accused with an
effective legal representation- (Article 39A: Mandates "Equal Justice
and Free Legal Aid).

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani

The court held that an accused has the right to consult a lawyer during
police interrogation, though the lawyer may not always be present
throughout the questioning.

Khatri v State of Bihar/ Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar/ AK Gopalan

v State of Madras

The Court held that free legal aid is a fundamental right under Article 21.

To be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours:

Section 58 BNSS- a police officer who arrests a person without a

warrant must produce the arrested person before the Magistrate
without unnecessary delay and within 24 hours, excluding travel time.

Preventive Detention:

Clauses (4) to (7) Article 22 provide the procedure which is to be

followed if a person is arrested under the law of Preventive Detention.

The word preventive is used in contradistinction to the word punitive.

While the object of punitive detention is to punish a person for what he
has already done, the object of preventive detention is not to punish a
man for having done something but to prevent him from doing so.

The first Preventive Detention Act was enacted by Parliament on 26th

February 1950. The object of this Act was to provide for detention with a
view to preventing any person from acting in a manner prejudicial to the
defence of the State.

This Act was purely a temporary measure and was to cease to have effect
on 1st April 1951. But its life was extended from time to time until it
lapsed on 31st December 1969. But this preventive detention was
revived in the form of MISA, 1971.

AK Roy v Union of India

Facts:

The case challenged the constitutional validity of the National

Security Act, 1980 (NSA). The NSA empowered the executive
(government) to detain individuals preventively — that is, without
trial — if they were deemed a threat to national security, public order, or
relations with foreign states.

A.K. Roy (a former Member of Parliament) challenged the NSA on

the grounds that it:

1. Violated Fundamental Rights (especially Article 21)

2. Was vague, arbitrary, and subject to executive misuse.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the National

Security Act, 1980, but with important observations and safeguards. The
court also held that the Act was neither vague nor arbitrary in its
provisions.

The Court directed:

1. That immediately after detention, his kith and kin must be informed
in writing about his detention and his place of detention.

2. That the detenu must be detained in a place where he habitually

resides unless exceptional circumstances require detention at some
other place,

3. That the detenu is entitled to his book and writing materials, his
own food, visits from friends and relatives

4. That he must be kept separate from those convicted

5. That no treatment of punitive character should be meted out to

him, and he should be treated according to the civilised norms of
human dignity.

State of MP v Shobharam

The Court held that different legislatures can legislate on the same
subject matter from different aspects.

Applying this to preventive detention:

 Both Parliament and State Legislatures can enact detention

laws on different grounds:

o Union → national security

o State → public order

Thus, the coexistence of multiple detention laws is constitutionally valid.

Constitutional safeguards:
 1. Review by Advisory Board- no law providing for preventiv,e
detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer
period than 3 months unless an Advisory Board constituted of
persons who are or have been qualified to be a HC Judge has
reported before the expiry of the said period of 3 months that there
is, in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention.
2. Communication of grounds of detention to detenu- As soon as
possible
3. Detenu’s right to representation- all facts need not be disclosed
if it is of public importance.

Huidrom Konungjao Singh v State of Manipur

 Huidrom Konungjao Singh (detenu) was alleged to be involved in

activities linked with an unlawful/insurgent organisation in
Manipur.

 He was arrested in connection with a criminal case and was

already in judicial custody under ordinary criminal law at the time.

 While he remained in custody, the District Magistrate (Detaining

Authority) passed a preventive detention order under the National
Security Act, 1980 (NSA).

The grounds of detention stated that:

 His activities were prejudicial to the security of the State/public

order, and

 There was a likelihood of his release on bail, after which he might

continue such activities.

Reasoning:

Preventive detention of a person already in custody is valid only if there

is a real possibility of release on bail and a likelihood of engaging in
prejudicial activities; mere assumption or absence of material makes the
detention illegal.