Preventive Detention Laws Are Draconian, Can't Be Used To Settle Political Scores Or Silence Dissent: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently remarked that preventive detention laws were draconian and the state could not use it to settle political scores or silence the dissenting voice. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal held that the authorities should exercise the detention power sparingly and with extreme caution. The bench added that the courts should take a serious view whenever these powers were not used by the authorities in good faith. “The detention laws cannot be used to settle political scores or silence the dissenting voices...Preventive detention laws are draconian. Power vests with the executive authorities to impose imprisonment. Thus, power to detain a person is to be exercised sparingly and with extreme caution. Failure on the part of the detaining authorities/police authorities to exercise the power of detention in good faith must be viewed seriously by the courts,”. The court also added that whenever it was established that the detention was in a callous manner, with extraneous consideration or for settling political scores, the State should take appropriate disciplinary action against the officer. “Any callousness, motive, extraneous consideration, settle political scores or silent the dissenting voice if established on facts and through documents, the detaining authorities/police authorities concerned should be subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the State under the relevant Service Rules. The State is not expected to approve the detention orders in a routine manner,” the court said. The court also added that the State should not routinely approve the detention orders. The court added that while detaining a person, there should be an application of mind and a scrutiny of relevant factors. The court also added that when there was a failure on state's part to protect the fundamental rights, the citizens could even sue the State for appropriate relief including claiming damages. “The State being the custodian of citizens must exercise the power of preventive detention with extreme care. Personal liberty is not a concession given by State. It is the duty mandated on the State under Constitution. Thus, failure to protect the personal liberty of the citizen by the State would result in unconstitutionality. An aggrieved person is empowered to sue the State and its authorities for appropriate relief under law including claiming of damages,” the court observed. The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of Varaaki, a YouTuber and investigative journalist. Varaaki had been detained under Tamil Nadu Goondas Act as a “sexual offender”. It was argued that Vaaraki had been detained with an ulterior motive as he had been raising a dissenting voice against the executives and politicians in the State. The State raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the plea and argued that it had not been given time to file a counter in the case as per Rule 24(2) of the Writ Rules of Madras High Court and sought for sufficient time. The court noted that the authorities had relied on 5 adverse cases for detaining Varaaki. The court also noted that investigation in these 5 cases had been transferred to the CB-CID wing of Police Department by a single judge of the high court who had noted that the cases were foisted with a malafide intention. The court also noted that another ground case was a landlord tenant dispute which could have been resolved by the Rent Control Court. Though the State had sought for time to file counter, the court noted that speedy disposal f habeas corpus petitions on personal liberty/fundamental right was a basic right under the Constitution and should be heard on priority basis. Thus, considering all the facts, the court was inclined to release Varaaki on interim bail for a period of 12 weeks, unless his presence was required in connection with any other case. The court thus directed Varaaki to be released on executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 before the Superintendent of Police. The court also asked Varaaki not to leave the country, interact with the witnesses, and asked him to cooperate with the investigation. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Arun Anbumani for Mr. P. Rajkumar Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Vikas Singh Senior Advocate for Mr. R. Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Case Title: Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and OthersCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 Case No: HCP No. 2714 of 2025 Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Preventive Detention Laws Are Draconian, Can't Be Used To Settle Political Scores Or Silence Dissent: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags