Preventive Detention (PD) orders passed mechanically must be nipped in the bud by Advisory Board (AB): Supreme Court (SC)

Link copied successfully!

SC in Nenavath Bujji etc vs State of Telangana and ors said that AB must play active role in ascertaining whether the detention is justified under the law or not.

About AB
- Article 22(4): Any law pertaining to PD must provide for constitution of an AB
- It comprises any persons who have been or qualified to be appointed as judges of High Court.
- Parliament can lay down procedures to be followed by an AB during an inquiry.
- The detention of a person cannot exceed 3 months unless an AB reports sufficient cause for extended detention.

Preventive detention (PD) means detention of a person without trial and conviction by a court, on a mere reasonable apprehension of him doing an activity dangerous to public order.
- Parliament has exclusive authority to make a law of PD on defence, foreign affairs and security of India.
- Both Parliament and state legislatures, can concurrently make a law for reasons connected with Security of a state, Maintenance of public order, etc.
- National Security Act 1980, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 provide for PD.

SC judgments on PDs:
- AK Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950): SC upheld constitutional validity of PD Act of 1950.
- Khudiram Das v. State of W.B., (1975): SC observed that power of detention is clearly a preventive measure. It does not partake in any manner of the nature of punishment.

Tags: