Preventable abuse sc calls out wrongful use of preventive detention such arrests must be made only in rare cases

Preventable abuse sc calls out wrongful use of preventive detention such arrests must be made only in rare cases

In a verdict that should educate authorities everywhere, the Supreme Court has said preventive detention requires serious threats to public order, not merely law and order apprehensions. An alleged white collar offender’s wife had complained that her husband was placed under preventive detention for a year by Telangana authorities under the apprehension that he would commit offences. This, after being granted anticipatory bail in five cases.

The court noted that cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects “law and order” but to place a person under preventive detention required a serious threat to public order, potentially affecting the community or the public at large. In the Telangana case, the police didn’t demand cancellation of anticipatory bail – an omission that tells us a lot about policing.

Recourse to preventive detention is particularly troubling because it tantamounts to imprisonment without trial or proper investigation or arraignment before a magistrate within 24 hours of detention. Justification for such detentions came from India’s history of massive agitations – on statehood, quotas, peasant and labour issues – as well as localised violence, communal riots and insurgencies. But preventive detention is sanctioned by the Constitution only with safeguards.

Therefore, even granting there is a grey area between detention before commission of any offence and the necessity of preserving public order, this power must be sparingly used – only when there’s reasonable probability of public disorder, not to “punish” troublemakers or keep them out of circulation. While 3,223 detenues were in prison on December 31, 2019, a 35% rise from 2018, another 6,533 detenues were released during the year. Significantly, 25% of surveyed detenues were illiterate and 41% had sub-Class 10 education, suggesting the possibility that many detentions are targeted at citizens who can be easily bullied. Advisory Boards that vet preventive detention orders must do their job far better. As the SC did here.