Preventive detention and administrative law
🛑 Preventive Detention and Administrative Law
📘 1. What is Preventive Detention?
Preventive detention refers to the detention of a person without trial, based on the apprehension that they might commit an offence in the future.
It is a preventive, not punitive measure.
⚖️ Constitutional Provisions (India):
Article 22(3)–(7) of the Constitution allows preventive detention, subject to safeguards.
A person can be detained:
Without trial for up to 3 months
After 3 months, only with approval of an Advisory Board of High Court judges
🧭 2. Preventive Detention under Administrative Law
Administrative law governs how state authorities exercise such powers and ensures:
Checks against arbitrariness
Procedural safeguards
Judicial review of detentions
Preventive detention represents a conflict between individual liberty and national security/public order, making administrative oversight critical.
📌 Grounds for Preventive Detention (Common Acts):
National Security Act (NSA), 1980
Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (now repealed)
COFEPOSA, MISA (now repealed)
State-specific laws
🛡️ Constitutional Safeguards under Article 22:
| Clause | Provision |
|---|---|
| 22(1) | Right to be informed of grounds of arrest |
| 22(2) | Must be produced before magistrate within 24 hours |
| 22(3) | Preventive detention exempt from 22(1) & 22(2) |
| 22(4) | Detention beyond 3 months only if approved by Advisory Board |
| 22(5) | Detainee must be communicated the grounds unless against public interest |
📚 Important Case Laws on Preventive Detention (Explained in Detail)
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) AIR SC 27
Facts:
A communist leader, A.K. Gopalan, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He challenged it as a violation of fundamental rights, especially Article 21 and Article 19.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the detention, ruling that:
Preventive detention is valid if it complies with Article 22
Article 21 (right to life and liberty) is independent of other rights
Natural justice and reasonableness under Article 19 do not apply
Principle:
This case represented a narrow interpretation of fundamental rights.
Significance:
Though later overruled, it shows the early judicial deference to state security over individual liberty.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
Though not directly on preventive detention, this case overruled Gopalan, establishing that all fundamental rights are interconnected.
Held:
Any "procedure established by law" under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable
Arbitrariness violates Article 14, hence also Article 21
Principle:
This judgment revolutionized preventive detention jurisprudence — now, detention laws must satisfy fairness and non-arbitrariness, making administrative law principles central to personal liberty.
Significance:
Laid the foundation for judicial review of preventive detention laws.
3. Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244
Facts:
Rekha was detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act for allegedly helping criminals get bail. The detention was challenged.
Held:
The Supreme Court quashed the detention:
Preventive detention requires real and immediate threat, not mere apprehension
Courts must examine the proximity and seriousness of the apprehended act
Principle:
Preventive detention cannot be based on vague, irrelevant, or past acts. There must be a live link between the act and the detention.
Significance:
Reinforces administrative oversight and prevents misuse of detention powers.
4. Alka Subhash Gadia v. Union of India (1992) Supp (1) SCC 496
Facts:
Challenged preventive detention under COFEPOSA before actual detention took place.
Held:
Courts generally do not interfere with preventive detention before execution, but exceptions exist if:
Detention is mala fide
Based on non-existent or irrelevant grounds
Constitutional or statutory violation
Principle:
Provides limited grounds for judicial review before detention is executed.
Significance:
Balance between state interest and individual rights under preventive detention law.
5. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 – Right to Privacy Case
Facts:
While not a preventive detention case directly, the judgment expanded the scope of Article 21, holding privacy as a fundamental right.
Held:
Any law interfering with liberty or privacy must be:
Legal (by law)
Necessary and proportionate
In public interest
Principle:
Even preventive detention must pass the test of proportionality and necessity under Article 21.
Significance:
Modern framework for judging the constitutionality of preventive detention laws.
📊 Summary Table of Case Laws on Preventive Detention
| Case | Issue | Key Ruling | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan (1950) | Detention legality under Art. 21 | Preventive detention valid if law exists | Early narrow view of liberty |
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Liberty and fairness | Law must be just, fair, reasonable | Overruled Gopalan; expanded rights |
| Rekha (2011) | Detention under state law | Quashed due to lack of imminent threat | Strict scrutiny of grounds |
| Alka Gadia (1992) | Pre-execution challenge | Limited judicial review allowed | Detention must not be mala fide |
| Puttaswamy (2017) | Right to privacy | Privacy is fundamental; detentions must be proportionate | Expanded scope of Art. 21 |
✅ Conclusion:
Preventive detention is a powerful administrative tool, but it limits personal liberty, so it must be:
Used sparingly and justifiably
Subject to constitutional safeguards
Reviewed by courts for non-arbitrariness
Administrative law principles—fairness, proportionality, rule of law, and natural justice—are essential to check abuse of preventive detention and uphold citizen rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments