Preventive detention laws necessarily harsh; need to follow procedure: Supreme Court
Satya Prakash
New Delhi, July 15
Noting that all preventive detention laws are necessarily harsh, the Supreme Court has emphasised the importance of strictly adhering to procedural requirements in cases concerning preventive detention laws.
“All laws on preventive detention are necessarily harsh. They curtail personal liberty of an individual, who is kept behind bars without any trial. In such cases, procedure is all a detenue has. Laws of preventive detention must therefore be strictly applied,” a Bench led by Justice Aniruddha Bose said.
Setting aside an order of the Jharkhand High Court upholding the detention of Prakash Chandra Yadav alias Mungeri Yadav—declared an ‘anti-social element’ under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 – the top court on July 10 ordered his release.
The Act empowers the state government to detain an anti-social element to prevent him from indulging in undesirable activities.
Noting that Yadav’s detention was extended twice without the authorities considering his representation, the top court said the procedure of law was not followed.
The extended period of Yadav’s detention beyond the period of three months was unauthorised and illegal, it said, quashing the November 7, 2022 and February 7, 2023 orders that extended his detention. It also set aside The Jharkhand High Court orders dated March 2, 2023 and November 2, 2022 in this regard.
Yadav was given a copy of the initial detention order dated August 8, 2022 passed by the district magistrate of Sahebganj when he was in judicial custody in Rajmahal Jail.
The order mentioned the grounds for his detention and gave details of 18 pending cases against him, including extortion and murder. He filed a representation against the detention order which was handed over to the jail authorities at Sahibganj on August 18, 2022. But the state disputed it.
On behalf of Yadav, senior counsel NK Kaul contended that while the advisory board took its decision under Section 19 of the Act, Yadav’s representation dated August 18, 2022 was not placed before it, and hence the decision of detention was bad in law.
