The Supreme Court of India has put the State on notice in a batch of habeas corpus petitions over alleged preventive detentions in Delhi, saying it will require the authorities to justify the circumstances, manner, and lawfulness of each detention.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the State must be held to account. “We have to call upon the State,” he said. The court, he indicated, will give the State an opportunity to satisfy three tests: first, the circumstances in which the detention allegedly took place; second, the manner of detention; and third, the justification for it.

The observation came as K.K. Venugopal, who served as Attorney General for India under the previous central government, told the court that a former junior had been taken away in a police van without a name badge or explanation. That account placed a personal story at the centre of a wider set of habeas corpus petitions arising from reports of detentions across Delhi.

A former law officer’s account

Venugopal described how a lawyer who once worked under him was picked up and placed in a police van. The absence of identifying details, including any badge or statement of the basis for the action, underlined the concerns raised in the petitions. He was not one of the petitioners but intervened with his account, lending weight to complaints that detentions are being carried out in a way that leaves people unsure of who is acting and why.

The pattern alleged in the petitions is that individuals are held, often briefly, without formal arrest and without being told the authority under which they are being detained. The State, the petitioners argue, has used preventive powers in a manner that evades ordinary accountability.

Three activists released after airport pickup

The court’s scrutiny came alongside a concrete example. On Sunday, activists Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das, and Ashutosh Ranka were released from detention by an Executive Magistrate after being picked up by police personnel soon after their flight landed in the capital.

They were held for a period and then freed without formal charge. The release, ordered by an Executive Magistrate rather than a court, has become part of the factual backdrop against which the Supreme Court is examining whether the detentions were lawful.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, maintained that preventive measures were enforced strictly within the statutory regime. He told the court that all individuals picked up in the recent round of detentions have since been released. That submission did not stop the court from insisting on a structured inquiry into what happened.

A test the State must pass

The three-part test outlined by Justice Bagchi is straightforward in form but significant in effect. The State must first give the factual circumstances of the detention, second explain the manner in which it was carried out, and third provide a lawful justification. That means the State must produce the records, the names and designations of the officers involved, and the statutory provisions under which action was taken.

Preventive detention is a coercive power that allows the State to hold a person without trial, usually to prevent a perceived threat to public order or security. Because it operates before any offence is proved, courts require strict compliance with procedural safeguards. The Supreme Court’s intervention reflects the principle that no person can be deprived of liberty without the State justifying it before an independent court.

The government’s position is that the detentions were carried out within the statutory framework and that the release of all those picked up shows that the process corrected itself. The petitioners, however, argue that the pattern of pickups and releases, often without formal arrest or explanation, is exactly what makes the detentions arbitrary.

Wider significance of the three-part inquiry

The case has drawn attention because it raises questions about the use of preventive powers outside ordinary criminal procedure. The court’s insistence on a three-part inquiry signals that blanket claims of preventive need will not be enough; the State will have to justify each case on its own facts.

The participation of a former Attorney General, who offered a personal account during the hearing, has intensified the focus on how the detentions were carried out. His description of a former junior being removed without identification or explanation suggests that even members of the legal profession have been caught in the dragnet.

The Supreme Court has not yet delivered a final ruling. Instead, it has laid down the framework for examining the habeas corpus petitions and has indicated that the State must come prepared to meet the three tests. The next stage of the proceedings will require the State to produce its response and justify the detentions in individual cases.

For the legal community, the practical takeaway is that the burden of justifying a preventive detention lies with the State, and a court considering a habeas corpus petition will look beyond the fact of release to the legality of the original deprivation of liberty. The petitions remain pending as the court examines whether the State can satisfy the tests it has set out.