Preventive Detention Demands Strict Constitutional Scrutiny

Preventive detention is one of the most extraordinary powers available to the State. Unlike ordinary criminal law, it permits incarceration without trial — based on apprehension rather than adjudication. For this very reason, constitutional courts have consistently insisted on strict scrutiny.

Recent judicial observations reiterate that procedural safeguards in preventive detention laws are not technical formalities. They are substantive protections. Any lapse in communication of grounds, delay in representation, or non-application of mind can invalidate detention.

Article 22 of the Constitution recognises preventive detention but subjects it to rigid safeguards. The power exists, but it is tightly controlled. Liberty cannot be curtailed through vague satisfaction or administrative convenience.

Courts have repeatedly held that subjective satisfaction of authorities must withstand objective judicial review. Where detention orders lack clarity, relevance, or timely procedural compliance, they fail constitutional muster.

Preventive detention may be lawful in exceptional cases. But exception cannot become habit.

In a constitutional democracy, the presumption must always favour liberty. Extraordinary power requires extraordinary responsibility.