Sign in / Join   

HOME BLOG ACTS CAREERS LAW NOTES  WEEKLY COMPETITION  

Home  Code of Civil Procedure  Preventive detention laws in India

Code of Civil Procedure

Preventive detention laws in India

November 12, 2020  29652  0

   

Image source: [Link]

This article is written by Shreya Malhotra, from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad and
Oishika Banerji of Amity Law School, Kolkata. This article briefly deals with the regulations
and safeguards against the misuse of Preventive Detention laws in India.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. What is preventive detention?
3. Historical perspective
4. Regulations for Preventive Detention in India
5. The constitutional validity of preventive detention
5.1. Does the constitution provide any safeguard against misuse of preventive detention?
6. Judiciary in preventive detention cases
7. Preventive detention in recent times
7.1. Protest of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)
7.2. Muntazir Ahmad Bhat v. UT of J&K (2021)
7.3. Abhayraj Gupta v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly (2021)
8. Suggestions
9. Conclusion
10. References

Introduction
The governance regime in India includes certain specific laws and acts which have been
constructed either to keep internal security or have continued since the period of the British
rule. In today’s world, caste and communal violence have become very common. National
security, equality, and human freedom being the central principles in India’s constitution,
the Constitution of India under Article 21 ensured a life with dignity to every person, which
is a fundamental right which is inviolable. The state’s approach towards criminals has
always been tough in suppressing and disowning the illegal activities in the best interest of
the public. Our constitutional framers chose to keep preventive detention as a method of
curbing anti-national operations.

Preventive Detention can be understood as imprisonment of a person without trial, an act

that is supposedly justified for non-punitive ends and is often described as a preventive
measure rather than a punitive one. The essence of the Law on Preventive Detention is
entirely different from the arrest and incarceration under regular criminal prison, which is
relevant in both a crisis and a calm scenario. In the event of arrest and detention, the
arrested person is given various safeguards mentioned under Article 22(1) and (2) of the
Constitution, but in compliance with the law of preventive detention under Article 22(3),
such protections are not extended to the arrested detention. Clauses (4) to (7) provide for
the protections in accordance with preventive detention.

We currently have various laws regarding preventive detention, but it is still an unsettled
matter that how far these procedures are capable of protecting a detainee’s interest.
Existing laws are more conducive to an arbitrary exercise of powers and require immediate
action from the judicial perspective. Judiciary plays a very vital role in cases of detention as
in the cases of punitive detention, a judicial brain is ensured prior to the arrest, but when it
comes to preventive detention, the coercive power is with the executives in regard to
detention.

Even the review of the conduct of the detenu is given to the Advisory Boards which is also
an executive authority. In this kind of situation, the detaining officials may abuse and
misuse authority and power, which harms the fundamental right of personal liberty of the
detenu. To understand it in a better way, the power to detain any individual as a
preventive measure has become an unreliable tool provided in the hands of state
machinery which might be used to accomplish their unlawful purpose.

What is preventive detention?

Preventive detention is when a person is held in police custody only on the basis of a
suspicion that they would conduct a criminal act or cause harm to society. The police have
the authority to hold anyone they suspect of committing a criminal offence. The police have
the ability to make arrests without a warrant or a magistrate’s authorization in certain
cases. Preventive detention was undoubtedly an important part of the colonial legal system
in India. Surprisingly, the framers of the Indian Constitution, who had been the most
oppressed by the preventive detention legislation, did not fail to provide the statutory
validity to the same in independent India. The recent article provides a detailed outline of
preventive detention with respect to India and the present picture it has painted of itself in
the democratic nation.

The word detention simply means when any person is arrested or taken into custody. It can
be legal as well as illegal. But when it comes to the security of the state and benefit of the
society, there comes a new term which is Preventive Detention.

There are commonly two types of detentions:

Punitive detention, which means detention as a punishment for the criminal offence. It
occurs after an offence is actually committed, or an attempt has been made towards the
commission of that crime.

On the other hand, preventive detention means a person’s incarceration in advance to

prevent any further possibility of the commitment of crime or its engagement. Preventive
detention is, therefore, an action taken on the basis of apprehension that the person in
question might do some wrongful act.

The word ‘preventive’ is different from ‘punitive’ as also been said by Lord Finley in the
case of R. v. Halliday, that it is not punitive but a preventive measure.

‘Preventive detention’ is also referred to as ‘administrative detention’, since this detention

is directed by the executive and the decision-making authority lies exclusively upon the
administrative or managerial authority.

Preventive detention is said to be the practice of imprisoning accused persons prior to trial
on the presumption that their discharge would not be in favour of society, and, if
discharged, they might commit multiple other crimes. Whenever the discharge of the
accused is deemed to be prejudicial to the ability of the state to conduct its investigation,
then also the measure of preventive detention is used. Understanding in a simple sense,
preventive detention means that a person is detained without trial and conviction by the
court, based on mere apprehension formed in the executive authority’s mind. In the case
of Mariappan v. The District Collector and Others held that the aim of detention and its laws
is not to punish anyone but to stop certain crimes from being committed.

In the case of Union of India v. Paul Nanickan and Anr, the Supreme Court stated that the
purpose of the preventive detention isn’t to punish any person for doing something but to
obstruct him before he does it and deter him from doing so. The reasoning for such
detention is based on suspicion or reasonable possibility and not a criminal conviction,
which can be justified only by valid proof.

The laws regulating preventive detention are repulsive to the modern democratic
constitution. These laws raise substantial queries about the protection of the citizens, as
mentioned under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution and the freedom of a person detained
on mere suspicion.

As per Section 151 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a police officer can apprehend
any person without a Magistrate’s authority or without a warrant if he receives any such
information that the person is likely to commit any crime of cognizable nature and which
cannot be prevented otherwise.

Historical perspective
India has a vast tradition of preventive detention and it comes under those very few
countries in the world which provide regulations for preventive detention. Though the
critics say that the provisions relating to preventive detention are without any safety
measures that are recognised elsewhere to be the essential components to safeguard basic
human rights. Taking an example of the European Court on Human Rights which has ruled
that preventive detention is illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights
irrespective of the protections provided for in the legislation. Similarly, in its submission to
the National Commission for the Review of the Functioning of the Constitution (NCRWC) in
August 2000, the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Center (SAHRDC) proposed the
removal of the constitutional provisions which expressly authorise preventive detention.

During World War I and II, considering the object of preventive detention, England created
certain emergency acts like the Realm Act and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act. All
such acts were specially designed for emergency purposes during war-time but also ceased
to exist after the wars ended.

However, the Defence Act was replaced by peacetime preventive detention laws such as
the Rowlett Act (1919) and Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, after World War I.

During the pre-Independence period of India, in the British era, the then government was
allowed to arrest any person on mere suspicion under the Bengal State Prisoners
Regulation, III of 1818.

The rules laid down in the Defence of India Act, 1939 permitted a person to detain if he
was satisfied that such detainment was essential in order to prevent him from behaving in
any way detrimental to the nation’s security and defence.

The first Preventive Detention Act was passed after independence in 1950. But this act was
questioned on its validity in the case of AK Gopalan v. the State of Madras at the Supreme
Court and with the exception of some provisions, the Supreme Court held the act
constitutionally valid. The Act before getting expired in the year 1969 was amended 7
times and the reason for each amendment was to extend its validity for 3 more years and
so was extended until December 31, 1969.

Starting from pre-independence till now there have been several laws made in regard to
preventive detention such as Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971; Foreign
Exchange Conservation and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA), 1974;
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), 1985; Prevention of Terrorist
Activities Act (POTA), 2002; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2008 and many more in
order to protect the society by constraining the ability of any individual who is likely to
cause harm.

Regulations for Preventive Detention in India

India is one of the few nations in the world with a Constitution that provides for
preventative detention in times of peace without the protections that are considered
necessary in other countries to protect fundamental human rights. The European Court of
Human Rights, for example, has long concluded that preventative detention, as defined by
the Indian Constitution, is unconstitutional under the European Convention on Human
Rights, regardless of the protections enshrined in the statute. Preventive detention may be
used indefinitely under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution, whether in times of peace,
non-emergency situations, or otherwise. Detainees are denied the right to legal counsel,
cross-examination, timely or periodic review, access to the courts, or compensation for
wrongful arrest or imprisonment under the Constitution, which enables them to be held
without accusation or trial for up to three months.

The first Preventive Detention Act was passed on 26 February 1950, with a purpose to
prevent anti-national elements from carrying out acts that are hostile to Nation’s security
and defence. The said act was supposed to end after the remaining 2 years in practice. But,
the time limit of the act was increased from time to time, and finally, it was abolished in
the year 1971.

In 1971 Maintenance of Internal Security Act, MISA was instituted to establish internal
security in India. It was regarded as a controversial act as it was being used continuously
to harass and detain people who put challenges to the governance of Congress including
certain opposition parties, reporters, and social workers. Even after making several
alterations, the act was finally removed when the Janata Party won in 1977.

Another Act named Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,
COFEPOSA, entered in 1974, which provided for preventive detention to maintain and
improve foreign exchange and to deter illegal trade. This act was like a backup for MISA,
1971 and despite the repealing of MISA in 1977, COFESA persisted. The detention period
for smugglers initially was for one year via another ordinance on 13 July 1984, this was
increased to two years.

In the year 1985 Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, TADA was brought in
the regard of Khalistan’s separatist movement. Originally the act was only for two years
but it was revised and reintroduced in the year 1987. This Act is deemed to be the most
powerful and restrictive laws drawn up under the system of preventive detention. The
purpose of this legislation explicitly indicated that it was accepted on the basis of practice
that, in order to deter and successfully counter-terrorism and violent acts, it is important
not just to enforce current laws but also to render them stricter. Till 1993 the length of this
act had been extended every two years. From the end of its time frame in 1995 until
POTA’s enactment, there was no law centre level to combat terrorism in India.

Prevention of Terrorism Act, POTA, 2002, was presented as an act similar to TADA in April
2001. POTO (Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, 2001) was formulated as an authoritative
order in the background of terrorist attacks in the USA in 2001. The decree was enacted on
24 October 2001 by the Government of the NDA. Following the parliamentary attacks of 13
December 2001, the Parliament had to be suspended which resulted in the passing of
another ordinance on 30 December 2001 in the absence of passing it as an act. POTA was
generated within the theoretical framework of global Islamic terrorism and the National
Security of the state. The act was repealed on 21 September 2004 by an ordinance.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, UAPA, was first passed in 1967 to assert all such
groups unlawful who are seen as separatist followers. Under this act, several organizations
were considered null and void in the 1990s, in the context of the destruction of the Babri
Mosque and the rise of separatist movements in Kashmir.

The Unified Progressive Alliance (UPA) government then amended the Act in 2004. The act
was revised again following the Mumbai attacks of 2008. Through this reform, POTA and
TADA clauses such as the maximum period for police arrest, warrantless arrest, and bail
restriction were applied to the UAPA. These changes allowed the government to hold
suspicious individuals in detention for long periods without the possibility of obtaining bail.

The 2012 UAPA amendment incorporated creation and distribution of high-quality

counterfeit currencies, and supporting organizations considered unconstitutional under the
scope of ‘terrorism operation’ as instances of those activities that present a danger to the
country’s economic stability. The latest amendment in the act was done in 2019 which
grants the NIA the authority to put even individuals, besides organizations, as ‘terrorists’
on the ground of suspicion that they have links to act of terrorism.

The constitutional validity of preventive detention

Preventive Detention Act, 1950 reinforces human detention in situations where state
conditions are involved, such as national defence, the preservation of peace and public
order, international affairs, etc.

The validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was challenged before the court in the
case of AK Gopalan vs The State of Madras where it was apparent that freedom of an
individual does not qualify as provided under Article 21. The Supreme Court, having taken
a limited view of Articles 21 and 22, refused to entertain whether there were any
inadequacies in the procedure provided by law. It was of the faith that each constitutional
article was autonomous of each other. When the petitioner questioned the validity of his
detention on the grounds that it violated his rights pursuant to Articles 19 and 21 of the
Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court disregarded all the arguments that the detention
could be justified merely on the ground that it was conducted in accordance with the
‘legally established procedure.’

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India, the court considerably broadened the
range of the expression ‘personal liberty’ and interpreted it in its broadest extent. The court
noted that Article 21 does not exclude Article 19 and that any statute depriving a citizen of
personal liberty will have to concurrently stand up to the scrutiny of Article 21 and Article
19.

Justice Chandrachud in the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v Union Of
India And Ors. established threefold conditions in the case of an infringement of personal
liberty of individuals: (i) validity, which presupposes the presence of law; (ii) need,
identified as a valid purpose of the State; and (iii) proportionality, which guarantees a fair
relationship between the objects and the ways pursued to attain them.

Does the constitution provide any safeguard against

misuse of preventive Never Miss Out on
detention?
Important Updates!
Article 22 of the Indian Constitution deals with certain rights that are provided in case of
preventive detention:
Subscribe to notifications and get instant
alerts for everything that matters to you.
Clause 2 of Article 22 states that each
Stay individual
ahead who is arrested
with real-time updates!and detained shall be
produced before the nearest judge within a timeframe of 24 hours of such capture
barring the time vital for the journey from the spot of arrest to the court and no such
individual will be confined in custody more than the said period without the authority of
a magistrate. Subscribe Remind Me Later

Clause 4 of Article 22 provides that no law for preventive detention authorizes any
individual to be detained for more than three months unless an advisory panel claims a
reasonable justification for such detainment. The members on the consultative panel will
be as eligible as a high court jury. The report has to be presented before the expiration
period of the said three months.

Clause 5 of Article 22 specifies that the reason for detention shall be conveyed to the
individual as quickly as possible by any official when detaining any individual under
preventive detention. The reason for detention should have a rational connection to the
object that the detenu is prevented from acquiring. The correspondence should include
all the ground-related information, and it should not be a simple assertion of factual
information.

The authority who has detained the person is not under any obligation to provide the
reasons for the detention to be held before his arrest but is recommended to do so as
soon as possible, thus giving the detained person with an incentive to be represented.

A person who is already in detention may be detained if reasonable and satisfactory

reasons exist to do so. The main problem is that there is no way to verify if the reason
for detention is just and reasonable in the context of preventive detention until it is
provided to the advisory committee that is applicable only after a 3-months span.

Clause 5 of Article 22 also says that the reasons for the detention should be conveyed as
quickly as possible in order to enable the person to have the right to representation. The
authority that provides the command for detention shall give the person the soonest
chance to make a representation against the order.

These restrictions make sure that the detainee is adequately protected so that the state
does not exceed its authority. These limitations ensure that the detainee is sufficiently
secured so the state doesn’t surpass its power. While human rights campaigners may
whine that the hardship of Clauses 1 and 2 of Article 22 breaches fundamental rights but
the detainee is conceded the right to know whether it will not harm the public interest and
the detention is led out considering the interest of the residents.

Judiciary in preventive detention cases

Last year, in the case of Prem Narayan v. Union of India, the Allahabad High Court stated
that preventive detention is an infringement upon the personal freedom of an individual
and it can’t be infringed in an easy-going way however notwithstanding such alerts, courts
most of the times have condoned infringement of liberty, basically giving no solution for
the individual for his affliction.

In the case of Khudiram v. State of West Bengal, where confinement was made under the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA), the Supreme Court stated that the
Court neither has the power to consider the ampleness or respectability of the grounds nor
is it allowed to substitute its own supposition with that of the detaining authority which is
most appropriate to take such decisions.

In the case of ShibbanLal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India stated that
a courtroom isn’t even competent to enquire into reality or in any case of the facts which
are referenced as the grounds of detainment.

In the case of Shri Pawan Kharetilal Arora v. Shri Ramrao Wagh & Others, an individual
was confined for nine months on the grounds of twenty-four bogus cases. The Bombay
High Court held that in spite of the fact that the grounds of confinement depended on gross
nature of mistakes and the detaining authority committed a serious mistake which stuns
judicial conscience, it acknowledged the apology by the authority and held that the
authority acted in accordance with some basic honesty and was allowed protection under
this section.

In the famous case of A.K Gopalan v. The State of Madras, where the lawfulness of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was tested, Justice Das made the accompanying remark, “A
procedure laid down by the law-making body may offend the Court’s feeling of equity and
fair play and sentence given by the legislature may shock the Court’s idea of penology, yet
that is a completely superfluous question. Our security against legislative tyranny, if any,
lies in free and canny public opinion which should, in the long run, stand up for itself.”

In the case of Nand Lal Bajaj v The State of Punjab and Anr., the Court while concurring
that preventive detainment laws and the absence of legal representation as a framework
seem to be entirely conflicting with the fundamental thought of a parliamentary
arrangement of government, inferred that the issue is basically political and is the worry of
statesman and not judiciary. The Supreme Court has over and over cautioned that the
judges must watch judicial restraint and must not ordinarily encroach into the space of
legislature or the executives.

Preventive detention in recent times

In the case of Mariappan vs The District Collector And others (2014), the Madras High
Court had laid down that the goal of preventive detention is not to punish the detainee but
to keep them from doing anything that is harmful to the State. In this way, the satisfaction
of the concerned authority is subjective satisfaction. It falls under any of the defined
criteria, such as:

1. State security,

2. Public order,

3. Foreign Affairs, and

4. Community services.

Three recent incidents surrounding the functioning of preventive detention laws in India
have been decorated with explanations as they received nationwide attention thereby
highlighting the raw truth existing behind the preventive detention laws in India.

Protest of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)

CAA was established in 2019 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration, providing a
road to citizenship for six religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan
who entered India before 2015. Muslims were not included in the list as a result of the law.
The decision of religious rights to Indian citizenship sparked widespread protests across
India, some of which were spearheaded by Muslim women, and ended in a harsh police
response.

Following the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 protests in 2019, more than 1,100
persons had been arrested and 5,558 had been placed in preventive custody. The United
Nations had asked India to free activists detained for opposing the Citizenship Amendment
Act (CAA) stating that “authorities should promptly free all human rights defenders who are
presently held in pre-trial custody without adequate evidence, frequently solely on the
basis of comments they made criticising the discriminatory nature of the CAA”. Meeran
Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, Natasha
Narwal, Khalid Saifi, Shifa Ur Rehman, Dr Kafeel Khan, Sharjeel Imam, and Akhil Gogoi
were among the 11 people named in the UN statement. Many of the individual cases listed
above contain significant claims of human rights violations, torture, and ill-treatment.
Experts had further claimed that bail was refused to these demonstrators based on
“counter-terrorism or national security laws, as well as procedural police authorities.”

Muntazir Ahmad Bhat v. UT of J&K (2021)

Jammu and Kashmir Police averted a major tragedy, commonly known as the Pulwama
conspiracy, on the eve of the 75th Independence Day by busting a module of Pakistan-
based Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) tasked with inciting violence by planting a vehicle-based
IED. They arrested four terrorists affiliated with the outfit, including a resident of Uttar
Pradesh. Muntazir Manzoor, a JeM member, was the first in this line to be apprehended
under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 on false and flimsy grounds without any
justification in terms of the impugned detention order. He was found with a handgun, one
magazine, eight live bullets, and two Chinese hand grenades. His truck, which had been
used to transfer weapons to the Kashmir Valley, had also been confiscated.

Muntazir Ahmad Bhat had been placed under preventive custody by the District Magistrate
in order to prevent him from behaving in any way that might jeopardise the state’s
security. Justice Tashi Rabstan of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while
hearing the case of Muntazir Ahmad Bhat v. UT of J&K (2021), observed that acts or
activities of individuals or a group of individuals, prejudicial to the security of the State or
public order, has a magnitude of across-the-border disfigurement of societies. While
dismissing the petition seeking release from preventive detention for the detainees
involved in the Pulwama conspiracy, the single bench judge viewed that those in charge of
national security or maintaining public order must be the exclusive arbiters of what the
State’s national security, public order, or security demands. Furthermore, the Bench stated
that while violent behaviour is not new, today’s extremism, radicalism, and terrorism in
their full expression have taken on a new character and represent tremendous challenges
to the civilised world. As a result, in order to keep an eye on the detainees’ illicit conduct,
the Bench rejected the petition, ruling it to be without substance.

Abhayraj Gupta v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly

(2021)
While deciding on the case of Abhayraj Gupta v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly
(2021), the Allahabad High Court quashed a detention order issued against a murder
suspect by exercising powers under the National Security Act, 1980, stating that if a person
is in custody and there is no imminent possibility of his release, the power of preventive
detention should not be exercised.

Essentially, three FIRs were filed against the petitioner on the basis of a single murder that
occurred on December 2, 2019, under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
[including 302 and 307 and the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986]. According to the petitioner, Rakesh Yadav was slain in the course
of the petitioner’s conspiracy, and when the police seized him to arrest him for the
aforementioned crime on December 2, 2019, he shot at the officers with the intent to kill.
Because of the brutal murder committed by the petitioner’s accomplices under a conspiracy
concocted by him, a detention order was issued against him by using powers under the
NSA, 1980, where it was claimed that people became fearful and terrified, and public order
was disrupted.

In considering the detention order issued against the petitioner, the Court noted that the
detention order contained a blatant assertion that if the petitioner is released on bond, he
may engage in criminal activity again. The Court went further to observe that there is no
legitimate basis to record this apprehension in the detention order, nor is there any
allegation that the apprehended action would be injurious to public order, thus he must be
detained to prevent him from behaving in any manner prejudicial to the preservation of
public order. The petitioner’s claimed act did not create a disruption of public order,
according to the Court, because it did not disrupt society to the point of generating a broad
disturbance of public peace. The Court finally determined that the satisfaction required to
detain the petitioner in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order is the basis of the order under Section 3(2) of the NSA, 1980,
and that this basis was clearly missing in the instant case.

Suggestions
It is amazing to perceive how preventive detention discovers its place in the chapter where
other fundamental rights are granted. There have been different examples of abuse of
Preventive Detention powers for political advantages or to control free discourse and
articulation. A few times back, the National Security Act was utilized in Uttar Pradesh to
ensure transparent and corruption-free examinations or captures were made for the issues
rising up out of neighbourhood cricket disagreements. Unreasonable capacity to detain an
individual without much checks and balances and the least legal impedance expands the
chance of conceivable abuse of power to detain an individual.

In the case of Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court of India stated that
Prevention detention is, ordinarily, repugnant to democratic ideas and abhorrent to the rule
of law. No such law exists in the USA and in England (with the exception during wartime).
Since, in any case, Article 22(3)(b) of the Indian Constitution grants preventive
detainment, we can’t hold it unlawful yet we should restrict the intensity of preventive
detention within very narrow limits, else, we will encroach upon a person’s entitlement to
liberty ensured by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which was won after a long,
laborious, noteworthy battle.

The increased frequency and the simplicity with which preventive detention has been
invoked over time presents the need before the Indian law framework to create protections
to guarantee fair procedure before restraining the liberty of people.

In the case of United States v. Salerno, the Supreme Court of U.S. set up a couple of
safeguards to prevent abuse of powers of Preventive Detention, which included, right to
counsel as a fundamental component of proceedings, strict constancy to speedy trial
requirements, hearing within a sensibly short timeframe of capture, etc. While the
safeguards exist in India however when such defends come into the picture, justice is
delayed and denied.

Expanded utilization of this power, often to curb disagreeing voices, represents a real need
to build straightforwardness in the government’s power to confine an individual.
Guaranteeing transparency would mean re-considering the laws that fail to secure some
essential rights of a person that can’t be undermined.

It is clear that in certain cases the laws pertaining to colonial history now have to be
modified or updated over time. Now there is a need for security and human rights to go
hand in hand. It now requires an evaluation of the laws and their regulation. The state
must take the responsibility to compensate the acquitted detenu in the place of damages
caused relating to life, health, income, etc.

A proper system should be made which will make sure that the rights are being made
available to the detenu during the detention period. If any accusations for coercive actions
are made, it should be taken in a serious way and should be followed by a proper
investigation by an appropriate authority. An independent body of law should also be set
up to examine such cases. It is also important that the rights of the detained persons be
respected and that the justification for their detention is made clear to them as quickly as
possible.

Conclusion
Protecting the limited resources alongside preserving peace and order is essential for a
developing country. India has undergone many rebels since independence on the grounds
of gender, class, race, faith, etc. India has mostly been effective in preserving its
independence, dignity, and autonomy through the use of these preventive detention
methods and national security legislation. The preventive detention laws are not completely
just fair and reasonable and need some changes or alterations to fit in well within the scope
of the Right to life and liberty. A few critiques pit security against the concept of human
rights as fundamental. India is a nation of immense scale and long borders and it
comprises multiple identities due to which the surrounding nations show animosity towards
it. Under these conditions, the responsibility of preserving India’s independence, dignity,
and sovereignty falls on these security-related rules, actions, and provisions.

As long as the law on preventive detention is made within the legislative entry and does
not infringe any of the conditions or restrictions on that power, such law cannot be struck
down on the specious ground that it is circulated to interfere with people’s freedoms. Under
this respect, a moral assessment must be taken because, at one end of the spectrum, the
lives and personal freedom of vast areas of society must be respected and, at the other
end, the life and personal freedom of the person detained must be taken care of.

References
[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical
exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skill.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and
various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
[Link]

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal
content.

Serato DJ Crack 2025Serato DJ PRO Crack

TAGS Regulations for Preventive Detention in India What is Preventive Detention?

   

Previous article Next article

Five reasons why mediation will be popular post 10 landmark cases on trademark infringement
COVID

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Order 9 Rule 9 CPC Order 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, Order 10 of Code of Civil Procedure
1908 (Suits by indigent persons) (CPC)

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Comment:

Name:*

Email:*

Website:

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

© Copyright 2016, All Rights Reserved. | Powered by iPleaders

