Judicial Review Preventive Detention
Judicial Review
Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary, especially the higher courts, to examine the actions of the executive and legislature to ensure they comply with the Constitution or laws. If a law or an executive action violates constitutional provisions, courts have the power to declare it void.
It is a fundamental principle for protecting individual rights and maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution.
Judicial review applies to laws, executive orders, and administrative actions.
Preventive Detention
Preventive Detention is a legal measure where a person is detained without trial, not as a punishment but to prevent future harm or danger to public order, security, or safety.
It usually suspends the usual rights to liberty and personal freedom.
Because it curtails fundamental rights, it is subject to constitutional safeguards.
The judiciary reviews the legality of such detentions to prevent abuse.
Important Concepts:
Preventive detention is preventive, not punitive.
It is subject to constitutional safeguards (e.g., in India under Article 22).
Courts review whether detention orders are justified and based on sufficient grounds.
Landmark Cases on Judicial Review and Preventive Detention:
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts:
A.K. Gopalan was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He challenged the detention, claiming it violated his fundamental rights under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
Issue:
Does preventive detention violate Article 21? Does the procedure established by law under Article 21 include only substantive law or also procedural safeguards?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the detention. It interpreted Article 21 to mean that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to "procedure established by law." The Court held this "procedure" could be any law passed by the legislature and did not necessarily require it to be fair or just.
Significance:
The Court took a narrow interpretation of Article 21.
It allowed preventive detention laws to operate with minimal judicial interference.
This case restricted the scope of judicial review regarding preventive detention.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without giving reasons.
Issue:
Whether the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be "just, fair, and reasonable"?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court overruled the narrow interpretation of Article 21 in Gopalan’s case. It held that the procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable and not arbitrary or oppressive.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of judicial review.
Preventive detention laws must now follow fair procedures.
Strengthened the protection against arbitrary detention.
3. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) (The Habeas Corpus Case)
Facts:
During the Emergency (1975-77), several people were detained without trial, and petitions for their release were filed.
Issue:
Whether the right to move courts for habeas corpus (release from unlawful detention) is available during Emergency when fundamental rights are suspended.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that during the Emergency, the right to habeas corpus was suspended, and courts cannot question preventive detention.
Significance:
This judgment is heavily criticized for suspending judicial review.
It weakened constitutional protections for detained persons.
After Emergency, this was overruled by the 44th Amendment (restored habeas corpus rights).
4. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
Facts:
Kedar Nath Singh was detained under preventive detention laws for alleged seditious activities.
Issue:
The constitutional validity of the preventive detention provisions concerning sedition.
Judgment:
The Court upheld preventive detention but laid down guidelines to restrict the application only when there is a clear threat to public order or security.
Significance:
Established limits on preventive detention.
Judicial review would ensure detention is not arbitrary.
Preventive detention must be based on concrete grounds.
5. Extraordinary: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017)
Though not directly about preventive detention, this case strengthened the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Significance:
The case reaffirmed that any deprivation of liberty (including preventive detention) must meet strict constitutional standards.
It laid the foundation for more rigorous judicial review of personal liberty cases.
Summary of Key Principles from These Cases:
| Case | Key Takeaway on Judicial Review & Preventive Detention |
|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan (1950) | Narrow interpretation of Article 21; procedure means any law. |
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Procedure must be "just, fair and reasonable." Expanded rights. |
| ADM Jabalpur (1976) | Suspension of habeas corpus during Emergency (criticized). |
| Kedar Nath Singh (1962) | Preventive detention valid but limited to genuine threats. |
| Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) | Right to privacy strengthens liberty protections. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments