{"id":128881,"date":"2026-10-14T11:31:34","date_gmt":"2026-10-14T06:01:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=128881"},"modified":"2026-10-14T11:31:34","modified_gmt":"2026-10-14T06:01:34","slug":"preventive-detention-in-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/preventive-detention-in-india\/","title":{"rendered":"Preventive Detention in India &#8211; Article 22 and Constitutional Safeguards"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Preventive Detention Latest News<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court\u2019s October 11, 2026, directions concerning alleged illegal detentions and restrictions on movement during protests in Delhi have renewed debate over preventive detention, prohibitory orders and constitutional freedoms.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Meaning and Legal Framework of Preventive Detention<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Preventive detention<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> refers to the detention of a person without a criminal trial or conviction, with the objective of preventing an anticipated offence or threat rather than punishing a past act.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In India, preventive detention may be invoked on grounds relating to public order, national security and other legally specified concerns.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/national-security-act\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>National Security Act (NSA), 1980<\/b><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, permits preventive detention where the statutory conditions are met, including when a person\u2019s activities are considered prejudicial to the defence of India, relations with foreign powers or the security of the State.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Preventive detention is an exceptional power because it restricts personal liberty without the ordinary process of criminal prosecution and conviction.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Preventive Detention and Prohibitory Orders<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Preventive detention and prohibitory orders are distinct legal mechanisms, although both aim to prevent potential harm.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Preventive detention<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Involves the detention of an individual to prevent anticipated threats.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Operates under specific preventive detention laws, such as the NSA.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Is subject to constitutional safeguards and judicial review.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, substantially retains the approach of former Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It empowers designated Executive Magistrates to issue urgent orders where immediate prevention or a speedy remedy is necessary to avert obstruction, danger to human life or safety, disturbance of public tranquillity, riots or similar threats.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Such orders may be issued without prior notice where urgency warrants it, but must state the material facts supporting the decision. They are subject to judicial scrutiny and should be proportionate to the threat involved.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Key distinction:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Preventive detention restricts an individual&#8217;s liberty through detention, whereas a prohibitory order regulates conduct or movement to prevent an imminent threat.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Evolution of Preventive Detention in India<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Colonial period:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Laws such as the <\/span><b>Rowlatt Act, 1919<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, and the <\/span><b>Defence of India Act, 1939<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, enabled detention without trial and were used against political opponents and freedom fighters.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Post-Independence:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The <\/span><b>Preventive Detention Act, 1950<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, remained in force until 1969.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Emergency period:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The <\/span><b>Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, 1971, expanded detention powers and was widely used during the Emergency of 1975-77 before being repealed in 1978.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Subsequent framework:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The NSA, 1980, established a continuing framework for preventive detention, while the <\/span><b>Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (COFEPOSA), 1974, authorised detention for specified purposes.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Judicial interpretation has increasingly emphasised the protection of personal liberty. In <\/span><b><i>Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India<\/i><\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (1978), the Supreme Court held that procedures restricting personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><strong>Constitutional Safeguards Against Arbitrary Detention<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Article 22(4):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> A person generally cannot be detained under a preventive detention law for more than three months without the constitutionally prescribed Advisory Board review, subject to applicable exceptions and conditions.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Article 22(5):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The detaining authority must communicate the grounds of detention as soon as possible and provide an opportunity to make a representation against the order.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Judicial review:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Courts can examine whether detention orders comply with statutory requirements and constitutional safeguards.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Fundamental rights:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Articles 14, 19 and 21 protect equality before the law, specified freedoms and life and personal liberty, respectively.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Judicial Pronouncements on Preventive Powers<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the predecessor to Section 163 BNSS while emphasising that such powers must operate within legal limits.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal (1975):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The Court highlighted the importance of communicating detention grounds, enabling representations and checking arbitrary executive action.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Ramlila Maidan incident (2012):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The Court stressed that prohibitory powers should be used in grave circumstances requiring immediate intervention.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The Court rejected a blanket ban on protests at Jantar Mantar and emphasised regulation rather than complete prohibition.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Shaik Naznen v. State of Telangana (2022):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The Court observed that preventive detention powers are exceptional and cannot be exercised routinely.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana (2023):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The Court underscored the importance of enforcing constitutional safeguards under Articles 14, 19 and 21.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Reform Priorities and the Way Forward<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A constitutional approach to preventive detention requires a balance between security imperatives and individual freedom.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Strict necessity:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Detention and prohibitory powers should be used only when legally justified and necessary to address the relevant threat.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Procedural compliance:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Authorities must communicate grounds, facilitate representations and comply with statutory requirements.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Effective judicial oversight:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Courts should scrutinise detention orders and restrictions for legality, procedural fairness and proportionality.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Protection of peaceful protest:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Authorities should regulate assemblies where necessary rather than impose blanket restrictions without adequate justification.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Accountability and transparency:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Clear reasons for restrictions and effective review mechanisms can reduce the risk of arbitrary action.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Source:<\/b> <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/what-did-the-supreme-court-say-about-preventive-detention-based-on-custodial-confession-explained\/article71532421.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">TH<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Understand preventive detention in India, its constitutional framework, judicial interpretations, safeguards under Article 22 and the balance between public order and individual liberty.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":128891,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[60,10862,22,59],"class_list":["post-128881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","tag-mains-articles","tag-preventive-detention-in-india","tag-upsc-current-affairs","tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs","no-featured-image-padding"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128881","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/21"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128881"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128881\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":128896,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128881\/revisions\/128896"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/128891"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}