In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the crucial importance of adhering to procedural requirements in cases involving preventive detention laws. The court highlighted that all preventive detention laws are inherently harsh as they restrict an individual's personal liberty without a trial.
Therefore, strict adherence to procedural safeguards becomes imperative to safeguard the rights of the detainee.
The case at hand involved the detention of Prakash Chandra Yadav, also known as Mungeri Yadav, under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, which empowers the state government to detain individuals declared as "anti-social elements" to prevent them from engaging in undesirable activities.
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Jharkhand High Court, which had upheld Yadav's detention, and ordered his release. The court observed that Yadav's detention had been extended twice without due consideration of his representation, highlighting a failure to follow proper legal procedures.
Yadav had been provided a copy of the initial detention order, which detailed the grounds for his detention, including pending cases against him involving charges such as extortion and murder. He filed a representation against the detention order, which was submitted to the jail authorities. However, the state disputed the existence of his representation.
Senior advocate NK Kaul, representing Yadav, argued that the Advisory Board, which plays a vital role in preventive detention cases, had not considered Yadav's representation while making its decision, rendering the detention unlawful.
After examining evidence, including endorsements by jail authorities and counter affidavits, the Supreme Court rejected the state's claim that no representation was made. The court held that the decision of the Advisory Board, which did not take into account Yadav's representation, violated the provisions of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act and Article 22(4)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Article 22(4)(a) mandates that no law authorizing preventive detention can exceed a period of three months unless an Advisory Board reports before the expiration of the three-month period that there is sufficient cause for such detention.
Consequently, the Supreme Court declared the extension of Yadav's detention beyond three months as unauthorized and illegal.
Picture Source :
