Right To Personal Liberty Shouldn't Be Narrowed: Madras High Court Orally Criticises State For Casual Use Of Preventive Detention Laws

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam advised the State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah to instruct the department to desist from using the laws. The court also informed the prosecutor that it was thinking of granting interim bail in cases where preventive detention is invoked without a prima facie threat to the public order.

The bench, which is currently holding the portfolio for habeas corpus cases had sought the presence of the prosecutor on Tuesday morning. When the prosecutor appeared before the bench in the afternoon, the bench informed the prosecutor that it was concerned about the State invoking preventive detention laws and affecting the liberty of individuals.

“A person being detained for 6 to 7 months on mere apprehension is not good for the democracy. Fundamental rights of personal liberty should be expanded, not narrowed down,” the court said.

The court also said that in many of the cases, the detention was not even passing the test of public order. The court also cited an example of a case that it had dealt in the morning where a man, in the spur of a moment had killed another man during a cricket match. The court added that though the incident happened in the spur of the moment and the man did not have any antecedents, the state branded him as a Goonda and invoked the preventive detention law against him.

The court added that in many cases, instead of improving the surveillance, the police were finding an easy way out and putting persons behind bars under the preventive detention laws. The court remarked that branding a person as Goonda would in turn stigmatise him, his family and would affect his livelihood and fundamental rights.

“Police surveillance is lacking. They are not able to oversee problems. So they are putting people inside under Preventive Detention laws. You're putting people in prison. Isn't it a type of conviction? The cases before us are not even passing the test of public order. You're branding a person, causing stigma, affecting his fundamental rights and all this because there is a likelihood of disturbing public order,” the court remarked.

The court also chided the department for not invoking the preventive detention laws against sand miners which is also an offence against the society, or the police officers who were abetting offenders. The court also asked the state if it was able to control the crimes in the State through mere detention.

The court remarked that the citizens were afraid to go to police stations but not scared to go to courts or hospitals. The court added that though the police claimed to be a “friend” of the people, it was taking little effort to address the situation.

“People are afraid to go to police stations thinking what will happen. But they are not afraid to come to courts and hospitals. What are you doing about this situation. You're saying police is people's friend. But what will people do when the friend itself is causing injustice?” the bench asked.

The court clarified that it was making the remarks after coming across a number of cases in which the police had been using the preventive detention law as an easy way, without any merit and thus affecting the personal liberty of the citizens.