Case Law On Preventive Detention Under The Internal Security Act
🔹 Understanding Preventive Detention under the Internal Security Act
Preventive detention means detention of a person without trial, based on the belief that they might commit an act prejudicial to public order, national security, or the maintenance of essential supplies and services.
The Internal Security Act (ISA) was enacted in 1971 by the Indian Parliament, primarily to deal with threats to national security and internal disturbances. It allowed preventive detention for reasons connected with:
Defence of India,
Security of India,
Maintenance of public order, and
Maintenance of essential supplies and services.
Although the ISA itself lapsed in 1978, the constitutional framework for preventive detention (Articles 22(3)–22(7) of the Indian Constitution) continues to allow Parliament to make such laws (e.g., National Security Act, COFEPOSA, etc.).
Therefore, the case law principles developed under the ISA remain relevant for all preventive detention laws today.
🔹 Key Judicial Principles
Courts have evolved strict safeguards to ensure preventive detention does not become arbitrary:
Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be genuine and based on relevant material.
The grounds of detention must be clearly communicated to the detenu.
The detenu must be given an opportunity to make a representation against the detention.
Delay, non-application of mind, or non-supply of documents to the detenu can vitiate detention.
Preventive detention cannot be used for punitive purposes.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Preventive Detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA)
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, SC 27)
Facts:
A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He challenged his detention, arguing it violated Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution (freedom and personal liberty).
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of preventive detention laws. The majority held that Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) was distinct from Article 19 (freedoms). Hence, a law providing for preventive detention could not be struck down merely because it restricted freedom of movement.
Principle:
The Court emphasized that preventive detention is constitutionally permissible if authorized by a valid law and procedure established by law. However, this case’s narrow interpretation of fundamental rights was later expanded in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).
2. Jagannath Misra v. State of Orissa (1970 AIR SC 110)
Facts:
Jagannath Misra was detained under preventive detention laws on grounds that he was allegedly inciting people against the government. He challenged the detention for lack of proper communication of grounds.
Held:
The Supreme Court quashed the detention, observing that the grounds must be specific, relevant, and clearly communicated to the detenu. Vague or general allegations are insufficient.
Principle:
The detenu must be given enough information to make an effective representation against the detention; otherwise, Article 22(5) is violated.
3. Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal (1975 AIR 550, SC)
Facts:
Khudiram Das was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971 — a successor to ISA in terms of purpose. He argued that the detention was arbitrary and based on irrelevant considerations.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that though the satisfaction of the detaining authority is subjective, the Court can still review whether the satisfaction was based on relevant material and whether there was any mala fide exercise of power.
Principle:
This case was a landmark because it allowed judicial review of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority — ensuring that “subjective” does not mean “arbitrary.”
4. Shibban Lal Saksena v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1954 SCR 418)
Facts:
The petitioner was detained under preventive detention laws, and he challenged the order on the ground that his representation was not considered expeditiously.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the representation of a detenu must be considered as soon as possible. Delay in considering the representation without sufficient cause would render the detention invalid.
Principle:
The case strengthened procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) — ensuring speedy and fair consideration of a detenu’s representation by the appropriate authority.
5. Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976 AIR SC 1207) — “Habeas Corpus Case”
Facts:
During the Emergency (1975–77), several political leaders were detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA). They filed habeas corpus petitions claiming that their detention violated Article 21.
Held:
The Supreme Court (by majority) held that during an Emergency, when Article 21 is suspended, no person has the right to move the court for enforcement of the right to personal liberty.
Principle:
This judgment was heavily criticized for its surrender to executive power. It effectively allowed preventive detention without judicial oversight during the Emergency.
However, it was later overruled in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) and Maneka Gandhi (1978), which reaffirmed the right to life and liberty as inviolable even during emergencies.
6. Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India (1980 AIR 1983, SC)
Facts:
The detenu was arrested under the COFEPOSA Act, and she challenged the detention on the ground of non-supply of relevant documents necessary for representation.
Held:
The Supreme Court quashed the detention, holding that all documents relied upon by the detaining authority must be furnished to the detenu promptly. Failure to do so violates Article 22(5).
Principle:
This case reinforced the importance of procedural fairness and the right of the detenu to effectively challenge detention.
🔹 Summary of Legal Principles from Case Law
| Case | Key Legal Principle |
|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras | Preventive detention constitutionally valid if procedure established by law followed. |
| Jagannath Misra v. State of Orissa | Grounds of detention must be specific and clear. |
| Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal | Courts can review subjective satisfaction for relevance and mala fides. |
| Shibban Lal Saksena v. State of U.P. | Representation of detenu must be considered promptly. |
| ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla | Preventive detention during Emergency (later overruled). |
| Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India | All relied-upon documents must be furnished to the detenu. |
🔹 Conclusion
Preventive detention under the Internal Security Act and similar laws represents a delicate balance between individual liberty and national security.
While the Constitution allows such detention, the judiciary has consistently emphasized strict procedural safeguards, judicial scrutiny, and protection against arbitrary executive power.
These landmark judgments continue to guide the interpretation and application of preventive detention laws in India today.
RELATED Blog
0 comments