Supreme Court Reiterates Limits on Preventive Detention

The Supreme Court of India has once again emphasised that preventive detention is an exceptional measure and must be exercised with utmost restraint and strict adherence to constitutional safeguards. Reiterating the centrality of personal liberty, the Court held that preventive detention laws must conform to the procedural and substantive requirements laid down under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

Preventive detention allows the State to detain individuals without a formal trial to prevent anticipated threats to public order, national security, or the sovereignty of the nation. However, the Court clarified that such power, though constitutionally sanctioned, cannot be exercised casually or mechanically. It represents a serious intrusion into individual freedom and therefore demands rigorous scrutiny.

A key aspect highlighted by the Court was the timely and effective communication of the grounds of detention. The detenue must be informed of the precise reasons for detention as soon as possible, along with all relevant documents relied upon by the detaining authority. This is essential to enable the detenue to make a meaningful representation against the detention, as guaranteed under Article 22(5). Any delay, vagueness, or withholding of material information vitiates the detention order.

The Court also stressed the importance of access to legal remedies. Detenues must have a real opportunity to approach Advisory Boards and constitutional courts for redressal. The judiciary cautioned against routine approval of detention orders without proper application of mind, warning that such practices undermine constitutional values.

This ruling is consistent with the Court’s evolving jurisprudence in landmark cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, which expanded the scope of due process and fairness in matters affecting personal liberty.

Significance

The judgment reinforces the rule of law by curbing executive excesses and protecting fundamental rights. It reaffirms that preventive detention is an exception in a democratic society and must operate within the strict boundaries of constitutional morality and due process.