Article 22 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Here is a detailed explanation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, along with important case law:
🇮🇳 Article 22 – Protection of Certain Rights Regarding Arrest and Detention
Article 22 provides protection to individuals in case of arrest and detention. It is divided into two parts:
🔹 Part A: Safeguards for Persons Arrested under Ordinary Law (Clauses 1 & 2)
(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the reasons for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained shall be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, and no one shall be detained beyond that without the magistrate’s permission.
✅ These rights are available to all citizens and non-citizens arrested under ordinary laws.
🔸 Part B: Preventive Detention Provisions (Clauses 3 to 7)
(3) The above safeguards (Clauses 1 and 2) do not apply to:
(a) Any person arrested under preventive detention laws;
(b) An enemy alien.
(4) No preventive detention shall be for more than 3 months unless approved by an Advisory Board (of High Court Judges).
(5) The person must be informed of grounds for detention, but the government may withhold facts if necessary in the public interest.
(6) The detained person cannot demand disclosure of facts considered confidential by the authority.
(7) Parliament may by law:
Prescribe circumstances under which a person may be detained for more than 3 months without board approval,
Provide for the constitution and procedure of Advisory Boards.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 22
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Held: Preventive detention law is valid if it follows Article 22.
The Court initially interpreted each fundamental right separately.
However, this narrow view was overruled later in Maneka Gandhi’s case.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 and connected it with Article 22.
Held that procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable, even in preventive detention.
3. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) (Habeas Corpus case)
During Emergency (1975), the Supreme Court controversially held that right to life and liberty can be suspended.
Later criticized and overruled by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
4. Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam (2011)
Held that denial of legal aid violates Article 22(1).
Legal aid is a fundamental right and must be provided even at the trial stage.
5. Union of India v. Paul Manickam (2003)
Held that detention under preventive laws should not be used as a substitute for ordinary law.
Authorities must prove the necessity for preventive detention.
🧾 Summary Table
| Clause | Provision | Applies to |
|---|---|---|
| (1) | Right to be informed and get legal counsel | Ordinary arrest |
| (2) | Must be produced before magistrate in 24 hours | Ordinary arrest |
| (3) | Clauses 1 & 2 don't apply to preventive detention | Preventive detention |
| (4) | Max. 3 months detention unless Advisory Board approves | Preventive detention |
| (5) | Right to know grounds (can be withheld) | Preventive detention |
| (6) | No right to demand secret facts | Preventive detention |
| (7) | Parliament can extend detention period rules | Preventive detention |
📌 Preventive Detention Laws in India (as enabled by Article 22)
National Security Act (NSA), 1980
Preventive Detention Act (repealed)
COFEPOSA (Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act), 1974
RELATED Blog
0 comments