High Court Questions State’s Use of Preventive Detention Law for Individual Offenses
The Madras High Court on Friday expressed strong disapproval of the State’s indiscriminate application of the preventive detention law, specifically the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers, and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Goondas Act). The Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam questioned the State’s casual use of the law and urged it to carefully consider who qualifies as a ‘Goonda’ under the Act.
The Court highlighted that the invocation of the Goondas Act should not be taken lightly and must align with the stringent requirements set out by the law. “Who is a Goonda? This is a crucial issue the State needs to reflect on,” the Bench remarked, emphasizing that the Supreme Court has made it clear that even a single day of illegal detention is impermissible. The Court also pointed out a Supreme Court report indicating delays in preventive detention matters, noting that detainees often wait an average of 181 days for relief from the High Court.
The observations came during the hearing of a petition by C Selvaraj, challenging a preventive detention order issued against him for his alleged involvement in a financial fraud case. Selvaraj was accused of facilitating fraud through bogus bank accounts and false salary certificates, leading to significant financial losses. Despite the gravity of the allegations, the State deemed preventive detention necessary to prevent further fraud.
The Court, however, argued that the nature of the alleged offences did not meet the criteria for preventive detention under the Goondas Act, which is intended for cases impacting public order rather than individual crimes. “The offences in question are related to individual bank transactions and do not involve a breach of public order,” the Bench stated, concluding that the preventive detention order was not justified in this case. Consequently, the Court quashed the detention order and granted relief to the petitioner.
(With inputs from agency)
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
