The detention order must comply with the constitutional safeguards provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and the grounds of detention must be specific and detailed to enable the detenue to make effective representation against his preventive detention.

1. Preventive Detention is anathema to a democratic polity having its foundation on personal liberty and rule of law. The Supreme Court almost at the dawn of independence in the very first petition to challenge Preventive Detention and "invoke guaranteed protection of the Court", reported as AIR 1950 SC 27 called Preventive Detention "Sinister-looking feature, so strangely out of place in a democratic constitution." The Court observed "Preventive detention laws are repugnant to democratic constitutions and they cannot be found to exist in any of the democratic Countries of the World." Preventive detention laws, all the same in words of Supreme Court "have taken root" and "have become a permanent part of the statute book of this Country."

2. Preventive Detention, over the years has come to be accepted as a tool to prevent activities of an individual detrimental to public order and security of the State so that the rights guaranteed under the Constitution remain meaningful to the people at large. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Chaya Ghoshal commenting on the need to have Preventive detention Laws on the statute book has observed :

"The compulsions of the primordial need to maintain order in society, without which enjoyment of all rights, including the right of personal liberty, would lose all their meanings, are the true justifications for the laws of preventive detention. This jurisdiction has been described as a "jurisdiction of suspicion", and the compulsion to preserve the values of freedom of a democratic society and social order sometimes merit the curtailment of individual liberty.........."

3. Preventive detention, and Preventive laws nevertheless, have always attracted "Hard look" from the Courts. It has been endeavour of the courts to see that the preventive detention laws, that enable the State to put behind the bars a person without formal charge or trial, are in conformity with Constitutional mandate and are not misused.

4. The Supreme Court in AIR 1953 SC 318 observed :

"...... Preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and such meager safeguards as the Constitution has provided against the improper exercise of the power must be jealously watched and enforced by the Court."

5. The Courts have emphasized time and again that rights of detenue detained under preventive detention laws, guaranteed under Article 22, must be respected and the Constitutional safeguards strictly observed.

6. In Union of India v. Chaya Ghoshal, (2005) 10 SCC 97, the Supreme Court observed that :

"....... the laws of preventive detention are strictly construed, and a meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguard, however, technical, is mandatory.

7. In Dhananjoy Das v. District Magistrate, AIR 1982 SC 1315, the Supreme Court held:

"The law is by now well settled that the detenue has two rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution : (1) to be informed, as soon as may be of the grounds on which the order of detention is made, that is, the grounds which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and ( 2 ) to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order of detention, that is to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make representation which on being considered may obtain relief to him..........."

8. A right to be informed of the grounds on which the order of detention is made and the right to make representation against the order of detention, are two independent rights. In order to make the right to representation against the order of detention effective and meaningful, it is imperative for the detaining authority to make available the material facts on which the authority arrived at subjective satisfaction that the person on whom the preventive detention is slapped, is required to be placed under preventive detention. The Supreme Court in AIR 1992 SC 1315 further observed :

"............ therefore, if the grounds are vague and indefinite that would

Click Here to Read the rest of this document