Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

Personal liberty is of the widest amplitude covering a variety of rights. Its deprivation shall only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law conformable to the mandate of the Supreme Law, the Constitution, more particularly to Article 21 thereof. (N. Sengodan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 8 SCC 664); Bhut Nath Mete vs. State of W.B., (1974) 1 SCC 645)., of all fundamental rights, conceded to the citizens under the Constitution, the right of personal liberty is the most cherished. A person is not to be deprived of this right except in accordance with the procedure laid down by law even if he be a man of the most desparate character. (Pilli Yeteswari v. Govt. of A.P (1996 (4) ALT 485 = (1997)1 ALT (Cri) 184).

Preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and such meagre safeguards as the Constitution has provided, against the improper exercise of the power, must be jealously watched and enforced by the Court. (Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. State of Delhi (AIR 1953 SC 318 = 1953 SCR 708). Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India, which permits preventive detention, is an exception to Article 21 of the Constitution. An exception cannot, ordinarily, nullify the full force of the main rule, which is the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. An exception can apply only in rare cases. The imposition of what is, in effect, a substantial term of imprisonment by the exercise of executive discretion, without trial, lies uneasily with the ordinary concepts of the rule of law. (Rekha v. State of T.N (2011) 5 SCC 244); R.v. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt., ex p Stafford (1998) 1 WLR 503 (CA). The law of preventive detention can only be justified by striking the right balance between individual liberty on the one hand and the needs of an orderly society on the other. (Commr. of Police v. C. Anita (2004) 7 SCC 467); Union of Indiav. Amrit Lal Manchanda (2004) 3 SCC 75).

The power of preventive detention is a frightful and awesome power with drastic consequences affecting personal liberty which is the most cherished and prized possession of man in a civilised society. The said power has to be exercised with the greatest care and caution, and it is the duty of the Courts to ensure that this power is not abused or misused. (Durgam Subramanyam v. Government of A.P. (2013 (4) ALT 243 (D.B); Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 746). The power of preventive detention must be confined to very narrow limits otherwise the right to liberty would be rendered nugatory. To prevent misuse of this potentially dangerous power, the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed and meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however technical, is mandatory and vital. (Rekha (supra).When it comes to fundamental rights under the Constitution, the Court, irrespective of the enormity and gravity of allegations made against the detenu, must intervene.The gravity of the evil to the community, resulting from anti-social activities, cannot furnish sufficient reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with the procedure established by law, particularly as normal penal laws would still be available for being invoked instead of keeping a person in detention without trial. (Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh v. Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad (1996) 3 SCC 194); Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 148); Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. Distt. Magistrate (1974) 1 SCC 103). The law relating to preventive detention has always been strictly interpreted so as to uphold the concept of individual freedom. Courts have always acted to safeguard the purity of such right which is available to be interfered with only under the most stringent and rigorous conditions. (Pilli Yeteswari (supra).

The compulsions of the primordial need to maintain order in the society without which the enjoyment of all rights, including the right to personal li