The Madras High Court has remarked that preventive detention laws, given their harsh nature, cannot be employed by the State to target political opponents or stifle dissent. Stressing the seriousness of such powers, the court said they must be used only in rare circumstances and with the utmost care, according to a Live Law report.
A division bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal noted that preventive detention vests sweeping authority in the executive to deprive individuals of liberty, and therefore any misuse or lack of good faith in exercising this power must attract strict judicial scrutiny. The judges cautioned that detention cannot serve as a tool for settling political vendettas or silencing critical voices, and added that courts should take a serious view whenever such powers are exercised without bona fide intent.
The bench observed that if facts and records reveal callousness, ulterior motives, extraneous considerations, political score-settling, or attempts to suppress dissent, disciplinary action should follow against the detaining or police authorities. It also emphasised that the State should not mechanically approve detention orders, and that every such decision requires careful application of mind and scrutiny of relevant circumstances, Maktoob Media reported.
Reiterating the constitutional importance of personal liberty, the court underlined that it is not a privilege granted by the State but a constitutional mandate. The judges said the State, as the guardian of its citizens, is duty-bound to exercise preventive detention powers with extreme caution, warning that failure to safeguard liberty would render State action unconstitutional and expose authorities to legal claims, including demands for damages.
These observations were made while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of Varaaki, a YouTuber and investigative journalist detained under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act as a “sexual offender.” The petitioner alleged that the detention was driven by his criticism of political and administrative authorities in the State.
The State raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition and sought time to file a counter-affidavit under Rule 24(2) of the Madras High Court Writ Rules. However, the court held that habeas corpus petitions, which directly concern personal liberty and fundamental rights, must be dealt with expeditiously as a constitutional obligation.
The bench pointed out that five adverse cases cited against Varaaki had already been transferred to the CB-CID by a single judge of the High Court, who had indicated that those cases appeared to have been foisted with mala fide intent. Another case relied on by the authorities was found to be essentially a landlord-tenant dispute that could have been addressed by the Rent Control Court.
In view of these factors, the court granted Varaaki interim bail for 12 weeks and ordered his release on execution of a personal bond of ₹1 lakh before the Superintendent of Police. Conditions were imposed requiring him not to leave the country, not to influence witnesses, and to cooperate with the investigation.
Preventive detention laws in India have long attracted criticism for alleged arbitrariness and misuse, with critics arguing that they are often invoked against journalists, activists, political dissenters, human rights defenders, and minorities rather than genuine threats to security.
Critics have highlighted several instances in which the National Security Act has been invoked in Uttar Pradesh in connection with allegations of cow slaughter, expressions critical of the government, and participation in protests.
Human rights groups have contended that preventive detention laws undermine fundamental rights, especially the guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. They argue that those detained are often held on unclear or undisclosed grounds, face delays in accessing relevant information, and are subjected to strict bail conditions, which together lead to extended incarceration without trial or conviction.