Preventive Detention Laws Are Draconian, Cannot Be Invoked To Settle Political Scores Or Stifle Dissent: Madras High Court
Safiya Malik
The Madras High Court Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice P. Dhanabal, while hearing a habeas corpus plea challenging a preventive detention order, ordered the interim release of a detenu for 12 weeks and directed him to surrender back to prison by March 30, 2026, subject to conditions. The detention had been made under the Tamil Nadu preventive detention law by branding him a “sexual offender”, with the authorities citing multiple adverse cases and a ground case arising from a landlord-tenant dispute and alleged abusive conduct. The Court said preventive detention powers must be used sparingly and with extreme caution and observed that such draconian laws could not be invoked to settle political scores or silence dissenting voices, adding that lack of good faith must be taken seriously by courts.
The habeas corpus petition was filed by the wife of the detenu challenging a preventive detention order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The detenu had been classified as a “sexual offender” and lodged in Central Prison-II, Puzhal. The detention was founded on five adverse cases and one ground case registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
The petitioner contended that the ground case arose out of a landlord–tenant dispute and that the alleged incident involved abusive language during a demand to vacate the premises. It was asserted that the dispute was civil in nature and that criminal law was invoked to justify preventive detention. The petitioner also relied on the remand order to contend that the grounds of arrest were not communicated at the time of arrest by the investigating officer.
Another contention raised was delay in forwarding the detenu’s representation to the Government, which, according to the petitioner, violated constitutional safeguards. The State raised preliminary objections on maintainability and sought time to file a counter affidavit, relying on the Madras High Court Writ Rules. The Court proceeded to examine the material on record in view of the continuing restraint on personal liberty.
The Court noted that “since the personal liberty of a person is being curtailed, which is a fundamental right enunciated and ensured under the Constitution of India, any illegal detention cannot be allowed to go on, if it is found to be contrary to law or issued on extraneous consideration.”
On examining the ground case, the Court observed that “perusal of the First Information Report would show that it is a landlord tenant dispute,” and that such disputes “normally would have been resolved by approaching the Rent Control Court.” The Court recorded that criminal provisions were invoked only by incorporating abusive language into the complaint.
Referring to the definition of “public order,” the Court relied on settled principles and observed that “every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder,” and that preventive detention requires conduct affecting the community at large. It further noted that the allegations relied upon did not demonstrate activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as contemplated under the Act.
On the issue of representation, the Court recorded that “the Superintendent of the Central Prison… has acted in a thoroughly callous and casual manner” in forwarding the detenu’s representation, and that authorities are duty-bound to ensure prompt consideration.
The Court also took note of earlier judicial observations made while transferring related criminal cases for investigation, observing that such findings “cannot be brushed aside.” It recorded that preventive detention powers are “exceptional and even draconian,” and that “personal liberty is not a concession given by State. It is the duty mandated on the State under Constitution.”
Rejecting the request for prolonged time to file a counter, the Court stated that “an illegal detention can never be allowed to continue,” and that detention laws “cannot be used to settle political scores or silence the dissenting voices.”
The Court directed that “this Court finds it fit to release the petitioner’s husband / detenu, namely, Mr. Varaki, S/o Radhakrishnan, aged 51 years on interim bail for a period of twelve weeks from 31.12.2025 in connection with the detention order No.1001/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 03.12.2025 forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.”
“The petitioner’s husband / detenu shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) before the Superintendent of Prison,” and that “on execution of such bond, the detenu namely, Mr. Varaki shall be released on interim bail forthwith.”
“The petitioner’s husband / detenu shall not leave the Country without the permission of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court,” and that “the petitioner’s husband / detenu shall not interact with any of the witnesses or make any attempt to hamper or tamper the witnesses involved in the criminal cases.”
“The petitioner’s husband shall inform his place and address of residence with the Investigation Officer and cooperate for investigation. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent of Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai for information and necessary compliance to release the detenu forthwith. The grant of interim bail will not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the criminal cases.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Arun Anbumani, Advocate, for Mr. P. Rajkumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, for Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary & Ors.
Neutral Citation: NA
Case Number: HCP No. 2714 of 2025
Bench: Justice S. M. Subramaniam, Justice P. Dhanabal
