'All Preventive Detention Laws Necessarily Harsh': Supreme Court Emphasises Strict Adherence To Procedure In Preventive Detention Cases

In a plea regarding the continued detention of a person under a preventive detention law in Jharkhand, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of strictly adhering to procedural requirements in cases concerning preventive detention laws. The bench, comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, acknowledged that preventive detention laws are inherently stringent as they curtail personal liberty without a trial. Therefore, the procedure becomes crucial for the detainee's rights. The court stated that laws on preventive detention must be strictly applied and opined–

"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."

The appeal was filed by an individual who was detained under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. This act empowers the state government to detain an "anti-social element" to prevent their involvement in criminal activities. According to Section 19 of the Act, within three weeks of detention, the government must present the grounds for the detention order and the affected person's representation to the Advisory Board.

In this particular case, the detention order listed the grounds for the appellant's detention, which included details of 18 pending cases against them. The appellant submitted a representation against this order, which was given to the jail authorities. The government sought the opinion of the Advisory Board for the continuation of the detention, providing the grounds for detention but failing to present the appellant's representation to the Board.

Ultimately, the Advisory Board decided that there was enough evidence to extend the detention beyond three months. Based on the Board's report, the State Government issued an order confirming the initial detention.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the appellant, argued that the decision of the Advisory Board was in violation of Section 19 of the Act because the appellant's representation was not presented before the Board. The government countered this by claiming that there was no representation from the detainee.

After examining evidence of the representation, including an endorsement by the jail authorities and counter affidavits filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, wherein they admitted under oath that the representation was made, the court rejected the government's claim. The court held that the decision of the Advisory Board, made without considering the appellant's representation, violated Section 19 of the Act and, more importantly, Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution of India. As per Article 22(4)(a), no law providing for preventive detention is permitted to authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an Advisory Board has reported before the expiration of the period of three months that there sufficient cause for such detention. 

Consequently, the court deemed the extended period of detention beyond three months as unauthorized and illegal for the appellant.

Case Title: Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand | Civil Appeal No. 4324 of 2023 

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Click Here To Read/Download Order