Open Access Research Article
PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAWS – BALANCING SECURITY & HUMAN RIGHTS
Published Paper
Article Details
PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAWS – BALANCING
SECURITY & HUMAN RIGHTS
AUTHORED BY - MONIKA SHARMA[1]
“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves”
? Abraham Lincoln
Abstract
Preventive detention laws in India have been
a subject of ongoing debate with proponents arguing for their necessity in
maintaining national security, while critics highlight the inherent risk they
pose to human rights and civil liberties. This research paper examines the
legal framework and practical implications of preventive detention laws in
India consequently focusing in their impact on human rights. The concept of preventive detention to
protect the integrity and maintain law and order has often been stated as a
necessary evil. Its the system that has been prevalent in Indian Criminal Justice
system since British times. Through an analysis of various facets of the law of
the land and international human rights standards this paper explores instances
of human rights violations resulting from the implementation of preventive
detention laws. The paper aims to decipher the law of the land vis-a-vis the
blatant human rights violation under the garb of implementation of the said
laws.
INTRODUCTION
Undoubtedly the most significant
legal development of the past century was the formulation of universal
international human rights norms. [2]
Indeed, several international institutions and most national constitutions'
have established the idea that everyone is entitled to a recognisable set of
common legal guarantees. Every human being born on this earth is born free,
autonomous, and equal in terms of respect and rights. Human rights are inherent
rights that everyone have regardless of their nationality, age, gender, caste,
or ethnicity. Human rights are necessary in the explanation of human life
because they provide people with a fundamental assurance of living a reasonable
and dignified life. Everyone has the right to personal liberty and security. No
one shall be detained or arrested indiscriminately. No one's liberty may be
taken away unless and until the law establishes the grounds and method for
doing so but sometimes laws are framed
and misused so as to curtail the basic fundamental human rights . Preventive
detention is one such concept & is used as a deterrent and does not
correspond to an offence, whereas criminal processes are used to punish someone
for an offence they committed.
The Indian Constitution expressly
permits the Parliament to enact legislation allowing for preventative detention
for reasons related to "state security, public order, or the maintenance
of important supplies and services to the society." 'Preventive detention
legislation must be studied with scepticism in the modern liberal-democratic
era, where the right to personal liberty is nearly universally recognised as of
paramount importance. They are a technique for holding people and restricting
their freedom, not because they have been convicted or are being tried for a
crime, but because they are suspected of doing anything that might jeopardise
law and order.[3]
The case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
(Retd.) v. Union of India [4]concerns
privacy, or the right to be alone. It discusses how individuals' personal
liberty in terms of privacy is expanding. The main difficulty with preventive
detention is that detaining someone on suspicion of something is a complete
breach of his basic right to liberty. Human rights activists in support of
individual liberty and state exigencies on the other side have opposing
viewpoints on preventive detention. This balancing act is critical because
there is a need to sustain momentum between personal liberty on the one hand
and the state's commitments to national security on the other. A Police Officer
may detain a person without a Magistrate's order or a warrant if the officer
suspects the person of committing a crime in order to prevent acts that
endanger 'public peace and order' or 'national security.'[5] If
we go back in time in India, the current incarceration rules are very similar
to those implemented by the British authority.
The Law on Preventive Detention is
fundamentally distinct from arrest and incarceration in a conventional criminal
jail, which is valid in both an emergency and a calm situation. Various
protections are provided to the arrested person in the case of arrest and
detention[6] as
per the Constitution, but such rights are not extended to the arrested detained
under Article 22(3) due to the statute of preventative detention. Although, Protections
in line with preventative detention are provided in clauses (4) to (7).
WHAT IS PREVENTIVE DETENTION?
Detention, in its most basic meaning,
implies restricting an individual's liberty without his or her knowledge.[7] It
can be both lawful and illegal. However, whenever it pertains to the state
security and the good of society, a technical term has emerged: Preventive
Detention.
Two Types of Detention:
1. Punitive - Detention
as a penalty for a crime committed is known as punitive detention. It happens
after a crime is committed, or after an attempt is made to commit an offence.
2. Preventive -Preventive
detention refers to a person's confinement in anticipation of committing a
crime or engaging in criminal activity. As a result, preventive detention is a
measure done because the individual in question is suspected of committing a
crime.
The term 'preventive' differs from
the term 'punitive,' as Lord Finley stated in the case of R. v. Halliday[8],
stating that it is not a punitive but a preventive action. The concept of
preventive detention existed all around the world, but there was no common
definition for it. mind Preventive
detention, to put it simply, is that a person is detained without being tried
or convicted by a court based on a simple apprehension generated in the
authority.
PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAWS IN INDIA
It is evident that preventive
detention system has been deep rooted within our criminal justice system . It
won’t be wrong to say that the prevalence of Preventive detention laws in India
post Independence has been one of the greatest examples of the fact that our
country is still tied within the shackles of colonial legacy. The history and
evolution of preventive detention can be studied as follows:
1. Bengal Regulation – 1818 –
It was one of colonial India's
earliest preventive detention legislation. It allowed authority to place
individuals "under personal constraint" despite the lack of
"sufficient reason to commence any judicial procedure" in the name of
maintaining state security. The 1818 law was eventually extended to all of
India, and it was in effect until at least 1927. In pre-independence India, it
was employed to detain persons with nationalist sympathies. All preventive
detention laws in India are based on the same ideas of criminalising dissent
and do not require suspicions to be proven to a standard of proof as in
ordinary law.
2. Defence Of India Act 1939 –
The rule of the rules under the above
said act provided for the provision of preventive detention if in respect of a
particular person, there were satisfactory reasons to arrest him in order to
prevent him from committing any act prejudicial to the defence and safety of
the nation .This act lapsed in 1946 .
3. Preventive Detention Act 1950 -The Preventive Detention Act of 1950, passed shortly after
India's independence, was the country's first preventive detention statute
(PDA). PDA was only supposed to last a year, but it was extended until 1969.[9]
The Supreme Court upheld it in the well-known case of A.K Gopalan v. State of
Madaras[10],
which is widely regarded as India's first fundamental rights case. PDA was
enacted as a temporary solution to address situations of violence and
displacement during India's division. The statute gave the government the power
to hold anyone without prosecution for up to a year. Permanent preventative
detention powers "needed closer study" before more permanent
legislations could be implemented, the former Minister of Home Affairs said
while introducing PDA as a temporary, twelve-month version.
4. The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) – UAPA was enacted in 1967 and is still
in effect today. The Indian government complemented the PDA's preventative
detention powers with the UAPA, which allowed it the authority to criminalise a
wide range of actions deemed inconvenient by the government at the time. Bail
is notoriously difficult to obtain under the UAPA. Without even submitting a
charge sheet, an accused might be detained in detention for six months. Unlike
the PDA, the UAPA did not include a periodic review clause, rendering it
indefinitely effective until repealed by Parliament.
5. Maintenance of Internal Security Act (1971)- Although the PDA expired in 1969, the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) was passed barely two years after.
The MISA's provisions were strikingly similar to the Preventive Detention Act's
provisions. The MISA was likewise permitted to expire in 1978, following the
infamous emergency of the mid-1970s, when preventative incarceration was
routinely utilised as a political weapon.
6. National Security Act 1980 - The National Security Act (NSA)
allows the central government and state governments to use preventive detention
in certain circumstances.[11]
The central and state governments, as well as district magistrates and police
commissioners, have the authority to detain any individual "in order to
prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to" various state
objectives such as national security and public order. NSA is a special law
that was enacted in 1980 and is popularly known as the "no vakil, no
appeal, no daleel" law (no lawyer, no appeal, no argument). Its preventive
detention powers are similar to those of the PDA and MISA, and it is closer to
UAPA in that it does not require a periodic review, despite grave human rights
concerns. The law empowers the Central and State Governments to detain
individuals for up to 12 months. A person can be detained for up to ten days
under the Act without even being informed of the reason for the detention. The
government is permitted to withhold information supporting the detention in the
"interest of the public," and detainees are not permitted to consult
with a lawyer during this time. NSA is one of the most draconian laws operating
in the country, and is extremely susceptible to abuse.[12]
7. Conservation of Foreign exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities (COFEPOSA)- It was enacted in 1974, and under this Act, preventive detention in certain
cases for the purposes of conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange,
prevention of smuggling activities, and matters connected therewith, because
violations of foreign exchange regulations and smuggling activities are having
an increasingly destructive impact on the
national economy, and thus a serious adverse effect on the Country's security
8. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 2004, 2008, 2012, 2019 Amendments
-POTA (Prevention of
Terrorist Activities Act) was repealed in 2004 in response to public outcry
over its misuse. However, in addition to repealing it, the government amended
the 1967 UAPA to function as an omnibus preventive detention law. Following the
November 26, 2008 terror attack in Mumbai, the UAPA was amended to include more
provisions similar to POTA and TADA regarding maximum periods in police
custody, incarceration without a charge sheet, and bail restrictions. The UAPA,
like the NSA, has no sunset clause, which means that if the perceived threat
decreases, there is no need for the extraordinary legislation to continue.[13]
In August 2019, parliament passed an amendment to the UAPA that empowers the
government to declare individuals as terrorists and gives the National
Investigation Agency (NIA) new powers to take property obtained from terrorism
proceeds.
THE GROUNDS OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION
AS PER NSA 1980
The Indian Constitution allows the
government to pass preventive detention laws against its own citizens in the
name of national security and "maintenance of public order," as per
Entry 9 of List I and Entry 3 of List III. Before bringing a preventive
detention case to the High Court, the government appoints a three-member
Advisory Board chaired by a sitting High Court Judge to determine whether the
detention is justified. However, the Board's proceedings are private, with the
exception of the section of the report that expresses the Board's opinion.
The National Security Act of 1980
allows for detention without charge or trial for up to 12 months to prevent a
person from "acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India,
India's relations with foreign powers, or India's security" or
"acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or acting
in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services."
Even in the dearth of any alleged
crimes, Indian law allows persons to be detained in order to prevent acts
endangering "public order" and "national security."
However, neither the Constitution nor current preventive detention legislation
attempt to define the range of acts considered threatening to "public
order" and "national security," or the range of acts (or
associations) supporting the inference that an individual is likely to commit
such acts. Of course, the lack of clear prohibitions prevents individuals from
adjusting their behaviour to conform to the behavioural expectations of the
prevailing regime. This shortcoming calls into question the legality of
preventive detention. With this in mind, courts have scrutinised executive
claims of threats to "public order" or "national security"
in order to justify specific detention orders.
The Supreme Court sought to
distinguish between the concepts "security of state," "public
order," and "law and order" in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of
Bihar[14].
The Court concluded that acts affecting only "law and order" without
one of the other two categories could not be used to justify a detention order.
The courts do not in general question executive determinations that alleged
acts would or do threaten national security." As a consequence,
jurisprudence has centred on the distinction between acts contrary to
"public order" and acts contrary to "law and order."[15]
The Court's unwillingness to create
precise, justiciable norms is reflected in these ambiguous phrasing. [16]
Indeed, the Court underlines time and again that "public order"
rulings are extremely fact-specific and must be determined on a case-by-case
basis. [17]
As a result of these developments, one critic believes that the terms "law
and order" and "public order" under Indian preventive detention
statutes "do not permit of any clear meaning." Even after so many
years, it is impossible to say with certainty whatever illegal action will fall
within the scope of the term "public order" because the courts have
given such diverse interpretations.
The NSA gives executive officials the
authority to issue detention orders "if satisfied that such an order is
necessary with respect to any person." This clearly enables preventative
detention if and only if the detaining authority is persuaded that the
detention is required to avoid risks to public order or national security.
Furthermore, according to the predominant legal opinion, the detaining authority's
"subjective satisfaction" is a legislative need for the use of this
jurisdiction. In Anil Dey v. State of West Bengal[18],
the Supreme Court held that the "veil of subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority cannot be lifted by the courts with a view to appreciate
its objective sufficiency. In Khudiram v. State of West Bengal[19],
the Supreme Court held that courts are not required to investigate the adequacy
or sufficiency of the grounds on which a preventive detention order was issued.
They must limit themselves to determining whether a reasonable person could
reach the same conclusion as the detaining authority based on the grounds of
detention disclosed to the detainee.
RIGHTS OF THE DETAINEE
Article 22 states that all people
arrested or detained must be
(1) immediately informed of the reason for
their detention;
(2) allowed to consult and be
defended by a lawyer; and
(3) brought before a magistrate within
twenty-four hours.[20]
However, this progressive procedural
rights regime does not apply in cases of preventive detention. Indeed, the
Constitution states unequivocally that the rights enshrined in Articles 21 and
22 (1)-(2) do not limit Parliament's authority to enact preventive detention
legislation. [21]Such
laws must, however, include certain minimal procedural safeguards. Article 22
(5) of the Constitution requires the detaining authority to communicate the
grounds of the detention order to the detainee. As a result, the NSA requires
that the grounds of detention be disclosed to the detainee as soon as possible,
but no later than five days from the time of arrest. In accordance with Article
22 (5) of the Constitution, the NSA also requires that the detainee be given
the earliest chance to make a representation against the order.' The act,
however, does not require the detaining authority to disclose any information
that it deems to be in the public interest to release.[22]
The Supreme Court held in Abdul Karim v. State of West Bengal [23]that
the right under Article 22(5) to be informed about the reason for one's arrest
as soon as possible and to make a representation against such order of
detention is a valuable constitutional right and not a mere formality. The
Supreme Court has also ruled that detainees must be informed of the reasons for
their detention as soon as possible and without undue delay. It has been active
in challenging any lax attitude of the State machinery in this regard, and has
quashed detention orders if there was an unexplainable delay in supplying
grounds forming the basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority
in passing the order of preventive detention.[24]
In terms of the right to be represented by a legal practitioner, the State has
the authority to deny that right to a preventive detainee under Article 22(3).
Furthermore, express provisions, such as Section 11(4) of the NSA and Section
8(e) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974, prohibit the detainee from appearing before the advisory
board established under Article 22 through the use of a legal practitioner.
In Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bhan v. State
of Maharashtra [25], the
Supreme Court held that a detainee can make a representation against a
detention order only if the grounds for the order are communicated to the
detainee, the material on which the grounds are based is disclosed, and copies
of relevant documents are provided. The court quashed the detention order in
the instant case due to the non-supply of relevant material upon which such
detention order was made.
HUMAN RIGHTS & PREVENTIVE
DETENTION
The ICCPR (The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) does not expressly prohibit preventive
detention. Preventive detention is a permissible deprivation of liberty if it
does not violate the ban on arbitrary arrest and detention in Article 9(1) of
the ICCPR.
According to this Article, everyone
has the right to liberty and personal security. No one shall be arrested or
detained arbitrarily. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on legal
grounds and in accordance with legal procedure Furthermore, nyone who is
arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his
arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him, Anyone
arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a
judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall
be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the
general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but
release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of
the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the
judgement, Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall
be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may
decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release
if the detention is not lawful & Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful
arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
According to a structural analysis,
the prohibition on arbitrary arrest and detention must have had a different
meaning than the principle of legality, which protects unlawful arrest and
detention. The Covenant is consistent as written if the prohibition on
arbitrary detention (focusing on unlawful arrest and detention) and the
principle of legality have distinct meanings (concerned with the protection
from arbitrary laws in addition to unlawful acts)[26].
Preventive detention is not
explicitly mentioned in international human rights law, and the prohibition on
arbitrary arrest and detention does not preclude it. The fact that the
authoritative international organizations have repeatedly refused to condemn
the practise in unequivocal terms suggests that preventive detention is not
forbidden under the arbitrary arrest and detention provisions of the
international human rights instruments. In fact, preventive detention was
clearly contemplated by the General Comments of the Human Rights Committee on
Article 9 of the ICCPR: Furthermore, if so-called preventive detention is used
for reasons of public security, it must be governed by the same provisions,
i.e. it must not be arbitrary and must be based on legal grounds and
procedures. [27]That
preventive detention is compatible with the right to personal liberty and
security and does not violate the prohibition on arbitrary arrest and detention
is supported by India's reservation to Article 9 of the ICCPR.[28]
According to the Government of India,
preventive detention laws under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution do not
entail an arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of liberty. The Human Rights
Committee confirmed in Campora Schweizer vs. Uruguay that Article 9(1) could be
used in instances of preventive detention.[29]
BLATANT USE OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION
& HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION
Arbitrary use of preventive detention
and human rights violations are inextricably linked to each other. In the
recent times India has witnessed numerous infamous cases of preventive
detention of political leaders , student activists , social workers etc . The
Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act of 1978, which includes a provision for
preventative detention, is one of the most often used pieces of legislation.
According to figures from the central government, there have been 450
preventative detentions in Jammu and Kashmir since the repeal of Article 370[30].
When the countrywide Citizenship
Amendment Act (CAA) protest took place in December 2019, the current regime
imposed a high proportion of preventive detentions on the protestors. Only in
December, when the CAA protest took place, were 5558 persons jailed in Uttar
Pradesh for precautionary actions.[31]
Many of the captives are still incarcerated after a year. People were
imprisoned under various laws that have preventative detention clauses in 2017:
67084, 2018: 98768, and 2019: 109912, according to data given by the central
government. According to the Center for Law and Policy Research, the number of
cases filed under the UAPA rose from 976 cases in 2014 to 1,182 cases in 2018.
States and union territories with insurgent activity, including Manipur and
Jammu and Kashmir, also saw an increase in the application of the UAPA. On
April 10, authorities arrested pregnant student leader Safoora Zargar under the
UAPA for allegedly conspiring to incite the Delhi riots. The Delhi High Court
released her on June 23 after the central government did not object to her release.
On September 13, former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Umar
Khalid was arrested under the UAPA for making a speech during anti-CAA
protests.[32]
The National Investigation Agency
(NIA), India's main counter-terrorism agency, arrested seven human rights
activists – Father Stan Swamy, Jyoti Raghoba Jagtap, Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe,
Ramesh Murlidhar Gaichor, Hany Babu, Gautam Navlakha, and Anand Teltumbde – for
their alleged involvement in violence during the Bhima Koregaon celebrations
near Pune in 2018. Those arrested had worked with marginalised groups,
including Adivasi (Indigenous) communities, and had publicly criticised
government policies. The government charged them with violating the Penal Code
by "waging war against the country" and having ties to the banned
Communist Party of India (Maoist). Many of those arrested were elderly and in
poor health. They were, however, held in overcrowded jails where so many
inmates either had tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it. Varavara Rao, an
80-year-old poet arrested in the Bhima Koregaon case in 2018, tested positive
for COVID-19 while incarcerated in July. Nonetheless, the courts continued to
reject the activists' bail requests.
Recently in 2020, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights also urged
India to quickly release human rights defenders detained for protesting the
CAA. The majority, however, stayed in confinement until the end of the year.[33]
According to an Indian Express
investigation, the Allahabad High Court quashed 94 detention orders out of 120
Habeas Corpus petitions challenging detention orders under the NSA between
January 2018 and December 2020. In other words, 78.33 percent of all NSA
detention orders were found to be incorrect over a two-year period. This
demonstrates that the constitutional safeguards provided to challenge illegal
detention are ineffective, and in reality, the detainee is left to seek relief
in such matters through the courts.[34]
The UAPA is one of the main tools that the
current administration has used to crush dissent on numerous occasions. The
only issue with UAPA is that it has all the hallmarks of being abused by the
government to quell protests. Furthermore, the UAPA gives police and state
authorities a long period of time to investigate and prosecute the arrested
person, which defeats the purpose of a speedy and fair trial. While 90 days are
allowed for the investigation to be completed, a person can be detained for up
to 180 days without even filing a chargesheet.[35]
It is evident that the preventive detention
regime in India has been indiscriminately used to crush the dissenting voice in
the name of threat to national security and integrity. The Supreme Court has also
said in a recent judgement For preventive detention there should be
"public order" concern and not merely "law and order"
problem. [36] It is
very important to understand the indiscriminate and arbitrary use of the
preventive detention laws is nothing but a grave Human Rights Issue.
The agonizingly long time it takes
our legal system to dispose of these proceedings, combined with the lack of any
redressal framework other than the filing of writ petitions for quashing of
preventive detention orders, ensures the detainee's continued victimisation.
Thus, the ultimate goal of the detainee's political or personal victimisation
is served.
CONCLUSION
A developing country must protect its
limited resources while also maintaining peace and order. Since independence,
India has seen numerous insurgencies based on gender, class, race, religion,
and other factors. Through the use of preventive detention methodology and
national security legislation, India has been mostly successful in preserving
its independence, dignity, and autonomy. The preventive detention laws are not
entirely just and reasonable, and they require some changes or modifications to
fit within the scope of the Right to Life and Liberty.
These laws give the state broad
authority to limit citizens' freedoms without reasonable constraints. Any law
that grants such powers has no place in the modern democratic system to which
India must ascribe. Even if the concept of these laws becoming necessary for
the prevention of any crime is accepted, the detainee must have more safeguards
available to them. These safeguards must not only be theoretical, but also
serve as effective barriers to any misuse.
Despite everything, woefully The
Preventive detention has to be regarded as a "necessary evil." In
a country like India, where many subversive activities are carried out by our
own citizens, the philosophy of Article 22 is still applicable today, similar
to the conditions that existed in the country at the time of independence.
[2] PAUL GORDON LAUREN, THE EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS: VISIONS SEEN (1998).
[3]Preventive detention laws in India a Tool for executive tyranny , Available at https://www.theleaflet.in/preventive-detention-laws-in-india-a-tool-for-executive-tyranny/
[4] AIR 2017 SC 4161
[5] Code of Criminal Procedure , 1972 , Section 151
[6] Constitution of India , Article 22(1) , (2)
[7]Meaning of Detention , Available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detention
[8] [1917] UKHL 1
[9] AGRAWAL R.K, THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT 5-9 (2nd ed. 1993).
[10] AIR 1950 SC 27
[11] National Security Act , 1980 , Section 3
[12]Arbitrary Arrests & Detention Violate Human Rights , Available at https://lokraj.org.in/2020/11/06/arbitrary-arrests-and-preventive-detention-violate-human-rights/
[13] A brief history of India’s National Security Laws , Available at https://thewire.in/law/in-illustrations-a-brief-history-of-indias-national-security-laws
[14] A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 740
[15] Masood Alam v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 897
[16] Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police and Others, 1995(3) SCC 237.
[17] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Shankar Tewari, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 998.
[18] AIR 1974 SC 832
[19] AIR 1975 SC 510
[20] Constitution Of India 1950 , Article 22 Clause (1-2)
[21] Constitution Of India 1950 , Article 22 (3)
[22] Constitution Of India 1950 , Article 22 (6)
[23] (1969) 1 SCC 433,
[24] Pritam Nath Hoon v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 9 , Mangalbhai Motiram v. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 4 SCC 470.
[25] , (1999) 6 SCC 593
[26] Laurent Jr Marcoux, “Protection from Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Under International Law” (2) 5 Boston College International And Comparative Law Review 345, 359 (1982).
[27] Human Rights Committee, General Comment 8, Article 9 (Sixteenth Session, 1982), UNDOC.HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1, 8 (1994).
[28] David H Bayley, “Preventive Detention in India”: A Case Study in Democratic Social Control (1962) and Derek P Jinks, 'The Anatomy of an Institutionalized Emergency: Preventive Detention and Personal Liberty in India' (2001)
[29] David Alberto Campora Schweizer Vs. Uruguay, “Communication No. 66/1980 (15 March 1980), UN Doc.Supp.No.40 A/38/40), 117 (1983), [18.1]”
[30] 450 people continue to be under preventive detention in J&K, Available at https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/450-people-continue-to-be-under-preventive-detention-in-jk/articleshow/74673414.cms
[31]Anti-CAA protests: 1,113 arrests, 5,558 preventive detentions, 19 dead in UP Available at https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/anti-caa-protests-1113-arrests-5558-preventive-detentions-19-dead-in-up/article30402858.ece
[32] 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: India, Available at https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/india/
[33] INDIA 2020, Available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-asia/india/report-india/
[34] 94 out of 120 orders quashed: Allahabad High Court calls out abuse of NSA in Uttar Pradesh , Available at https://indianexpress.com/article/express-exclusive/national-security-act-uttar-pradesh-police-detentions-cow-slaughter-ban-7260425/
[35] UAPA and the growing crisis of judicial credibility in India , Available at https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/uapa-growing-crisis-judicial-credibility-india/
[36] Banka Sheela Sneha V State of Telangana , CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 733 OF 2021
Article Information
PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAWS – BALANCING SECURITY & HUMAN RIGHTS
Authors: MONIKA SHARMA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/03/24
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.