E-Paper
Madras HC slams TN govt’s use of preventive detention laws
The Madras High Court criticized Tamil Nadu's use of preventive detention laws, emphasizing personal liberty and warning against silencing dissent.
The Madras high court has taken a strong exception to the Tamil Nadu government’s indiscriminate use of preventive detention laws, and warned that such “draconian powers” cannot be deployed to “silence dissenting voices or bypass ordinary criminal law.”
In an order passed on December 30, 2025, the court reiterated that personal liberty remains the State’s foremost constitutional obligation and directed the home secretary to initiate departmental action against officials who invoke the Goondas Act against citizens for “extraneous reasons” in an erroneous and mechanical manner, and to prosecute them if necessary.
A bench of justices SM Subramaniam and P Dhanabal granted interim bail to a YouTube investigative journalist Varaki, who had been detained as a “sexual offender” under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act.
The bench granted Varaki bail for three months after holding that there were not any sufficient grounds to detain Varaki under the Goondas Act.
The bench directed the State to file its counter-affidavit within 12 weeks and also flagged a “growing tendency” among State police officers to invoke the Goondas Act mechanically to prolong the incarceration of accused persons.
If this were allowed to continue, it would lead to “disastrous consequences,” the court said. The court added that the right to personal liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, and any illegal detention, particularly one ordered for extraneous reasons, cannot be permitted to continue “even for an hour”.
“Preventive detention laws are draconian. Power vests with the executive authorities to impose imprisonment. Any callousness, motive, extraneous consideration, settle political scores or silence 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 high court said.
The court also examined the scope of “public order,” which it said, was a “key requirement” for invoking preventive detention, and reiterated settled Supreme Court jurisprudence that not every breach of law and order qualifies as a threat to public order.
Acts that affect only private individuals, the bench noted, cannot justify detention unless they disturb the community at large. In the present case, the court found that the alleged incident stemmed from a landlord–tenant dispute, which could have been addressed through civil or ordinary criminal remedies.
“Mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not enough,” the high court said, emphasising that criminal allegations, however serious, do not automatically warrant preventive detention. It added that detention authorities must clearly demonstrate how the alleged conduct threatens public order, and not merely cite the gravity of the offence.
The bench also expressed concern over the manner in which habeas corpus petitions often lose their efficacy. It noted that the State frequently seeks repeated adjournments to file counters, resulting in petitions being heard only near the expiry of detention periods. Such delays, the court said, render constitutional remedies “frustrated and meaningless,” while allowing illegal detention to continue unchecked.
It said that the problem in Tamil Nadu was a “systemic one,” where hundreds of preventive detention orders lead to a backlog of habeas corpus cases.
The judges warned that detaining authorities appear to take advantage of these delays, confident that prolonged incarceration will persist regardless of judicial scrutiny.
The court also flagged the misuse of preventive detention against journalists and social media commentators, stating that filing “criminal case after criminal case” and invoking Act 14 of 1982 against such individuals directly infringes freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
