Preventive Detention Under The Internal Security Act
I. PREVENTIVE DETENTION UNDER ISA
1. Meaning and Objective
Preventive detention allows the state to detain an individual without trial to prevent them from committing a potential offense, especially when it threatens national security or public order.
Internal Security Act (ISA), 1980 (now replaced in many states by NSA/other laws):
Designed to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the state.
Aimed at terrorism, espionage, anti-national activities, and serious threats to public order.
Key features:
Detention without immediate trial.
Maximum period usually up to 12 months, extendable by government approval.
Subject to review by Advisory Boards or courts.
Provides procedural safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution.
II. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Article 22(1)–(7): Special provisions for preventive detention:
Preventive detention allowed up to 3 months without advisory board review, extendable with approval.
Detention beyond 3 months requires approval of Advisory Board (comprising High Court judges).
Fundamental rights can be restricted in preventive detention cases.
III. LANDMARK CASES
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) SCR 88
Facts: A.K. Gopalan was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, claiming violation of Articles 19 and 21.
Held: Supreme Court held preventive detention did not violate Article 21, interpreting “procedure established by law” strictly.
Significance: Early recognition of preventive detention, though it limited personal liberty.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts: Maneka Gandhi challenged detention related to passport restrictions.
Held: Expanded Article 21 interpretation — “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Significance: Changed preventive detention jurisprudence, ensuring procedural fairness even for ISA detentions.
3. Bhagat Ram v. Union of India (1980)
Facts: Detention under ISA challenged as arbitrary.
Held: Court held that detention must show clear nexus between action and threat to state security.
Significance: Emphasized that ISA cannot be used arbitrarily or for minor offenses.
4. A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271
Facts: Constitutionality of National Security Act (NSA) under preventive detention laws challenged.
Held: Court upheld law but emphasized judicial safeguards and advisory board review to prevent misuse.
Significance: Strengthened oversight mechanisms for preventive detention.
5. Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. State of Bihar (1983)
Facts: Alleged that ISA detention violated fundamental rights.
Held: Court held that ISA must be invoked only in cases of serious threat to public order or security, not for political convenience.
Significance: Reinforced restriction against arbitrary detention.
6. Kanu Sanyal v. Union of India (1973)
Facts: Leaders of Naxalite movement detained under preventive detention laws.
Held: Court emphasized evidence-based assessment of risk before detention.
Significance: Highlighted that detention must be proportionate and necessary.
7. Union of India v. R. S. Nayak (1994)
Facts: Preventive detention challenged for delay in advisory board review.
Held: Delay invalidated detention; courts stressed timeliness in advisory board review.
Significance: Procedural efficiency is crucial in preventive detention cases.
IV. KEY PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAW
Preventive detention is preventive, not punitive.
Must be evidence-based and proportionate to threat.
Advisory Board review is mandatory for detention beyond 3 months.
Procedural safeguards under Article 22 and principles from Maneka Gandhi apply.
Judicial oversight ensures ISA or similar laws are not misused for political purposes.
V. SUMMARY TABLE
| Case | Year | Issue | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan | 1950 | Preventive detention legality | Article 21: procedure established by law |
| Maneka Gandhi | 1978 | Fair procedure | Detention must be just, fair, reasonable |
| Bhagat Ram | 1980 | Arbitrary detention | Clear nexus with security threat required |
| A.K. Roy | 1982 | NSA law | Advisory Board & judicial safeguards necessary |
| Lallu Yeshwant Singh | 1983 | Misuse of ISA | Only serious threats justify detention |
| Kanu Sanyal | 1973 | Naxalite detention | Evidence-based assessment essential |
| R.S. Nayak | 1994 | Delay in review | Timely advisory board review mandatory |
RELATED Blog
0 comments