Recently, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that personal liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience, holding that a person cannot be kept in custody beyond the period authorised by law or continued in detention after complying with statutory requirements. The Court examined the legality of preventive detention proceedings initiated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and issued extensive directions to curb the misuse of preventive powers. The Court emphasised that constitutional courts cannot remain passive spectators when an individual's liberty is curtailed in violation of statutory and constitutional safeguards.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a habeas corpus petition alleging that the petitioner had been detained by the police under preventive provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and was kept in custody for a period exceeding the statutory limit. The petitioner contended that despite furnishing the requisite bonds in proceedings initiated under Sections 126, 135 and 170 of the BNSS, he continued to remain incarcerated and was ultimately sent to jail. Challenging the legality of the detention, the petition sought release, protection against further harassment, compensation for unlawful detention, and examination of the manner in which preventive powers were being exercised by the authorities. The dispute consequently required the Court to determine whether the continued detention was legally sustainable and whether the statutory safeguards governing preventive proceedings had been complied with.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioners argued that the continued detention was wholly illegal because the petitioner remained in custody even after executing the requisite bonds. The Counsel submitted that the authorities acted contrary to Sections 126, 135 and 170 of the BNSS and violated the constitutional guarantees under Articles 21 and 22. The petitioners further sought compensation for the period of illegal detention and challenged the arbitrary exercise of preventive powers.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State contended that preventive action had been initiated on the basis of information indicating a possible breach of peace. The Counsel argued that the arrest, production before the competent authority and subsequent proceedings were lawful and undertaken within the framework of preventive jurisdiction available under the BNSS.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that personal liberty occupies a paramount position within the constitutional framework and that preventive powers cannot be exercised in a routine or mechanical manner. The Bench held that authorities exercising preventive jurisdiction must act strictly within the confines of law and with due regard to constitutional safeguards. The Court observed, “Law abhors illegal detention. The Courts cannot be a mute spectator to an illegal detention in flagrant violation of basic constitutional norms.” The Bench further noted that constitutional courts are duty-bound to intervene whenever liberty is curtailed in disregard of statutory and constitutional protections.
The Bench held that no person can be deprived of liberty beyond the period authorised by law and that detention under preventive provisions is permissible only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by statute. Referring to the settled legal position governing preventive proceedings, the Bench reiterated that detention is justified only where there is a failure to execute the requisite bond. The Court noted that, “The order of detention under Chapter - VIII can be passed only in default of execution of bond and not otherwise. Thus, the sine qua non for detention under Chapter VIII of the Code is failure to execute a bond.” It further found no justification for continuing custody after compliance with the statutory requirements.
The Court further observed that Executive Magistrates are required to independently apply their mind before directing preventive action and cannot resort to mechanical or cyclostyled orders. Criticising the practice of issuing pre-printed notices and orders without recording reasons, the Bench found that such actions undermine the statutory safeguards designed to protect liberty. The Court noted that the authorities were under a legal obligation to record reasons justifying immediate preventive action and observed that respondent no.5 mechanically issued notice/challan without any application of mind. The Bench stressed that orders affecting personal liberty must reflect genuine consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case.
Ultimately, the Bench held that the continued incarceration of persons detained merely to prevent a breach of peace was wholly inconsistent with the statutory scheme of the BNSS. Expressing concern over the recurring practice of insisting upon excessive bonds and sureties, the Bench observed, “Despite the said policy decision, the police officials of the State and the Magistrates are acting in a highly irresponsible manner by sending persons brought before them, only to prevent breach of peace, to jail for days together.”
The decision of the Court:
The High Court held that the petitioner had been illegally detained and was entitled to compensation. It directed payment of ₹75,000 to the petitioner, calculated at ₹25,000 per day of illegal detention, with liberty to the State Government to recover the amount from the responsible officers after disciplinary proceedings.
The Court also issued far-reaching directions governing future preventive detention proceedings, including limiting the requirement of bonds, discouraging insistence on sureties, mandating prompt release upon execution of bonds, providing compensation at the rate of ₹25,000 per day for illegal detention beyond twenty-four hours, and requiring disciplinary action against officials responsible for such violations. Compliance reports were directed to be filed before the Court, and copies of the order were ordered to be circulated throughout the State police administration.
Case Title: Chander Pal Singh and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Case No.: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. - 214 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Siddharth, Hon’ble Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Gautam, Adv. Jitendra Rana, Adv. Mohd. Shamim, Adv. Rajrshi Gupta
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
