Facts in the Case
- Gopal was preventively detained by the authorities in the year 2009.
- He challenged the legality of his preventive detention, claiming that it violated his Fundamental Rights under:
- Article 14 (Right to Equality),
- Article 19 (Protection of Certain Freedoms), and
- Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution of India.
Issues in the Case
- Whether preventive detention violates the Fundamental Rights under Article 14, 19, and 21.
- Can the State detain a person without trial on mere apprehension?
- What constitutional safeguards are available against misuse of preventive detention laws?
- What kind of interpretation should be applied to balance individual liberty with national security and public order?
Principles Applied
1. Preventive Detention and the Constitution
- Preventive Detention is permitted under the Constitution of India by Articles 22(3) to 22(7), which carve out an exception to normal procedural safeguards available under Articles 19 and 21.
- It allows detention without trial, but only under strict procedural conditions.
2. Interpretation of Article 21
- Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
- The procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable as laid down in:
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
- The Supreme Court ruled that any law depriving liberty must not be arbitrary and must satisfy the tests of Articles 14, 19, and 21 collectively.
- Preventive detention laws must pass the test of non-arbitrariness, and reasonable procedure must be followed.
3. Article 14 – Right to Equality
- The procedure under preventive detention must not be arbitrary, and there should be equality before the law.
- If the detention is discriminatory or without reasonable classification, it violates Article 14.
4. Article 19 – Freedom of Movement and Expression
- Although preventive detention affects Article 19 rights, the Constitution permits reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, security, and sovereignty.
5. Judicial Precedent
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
- Initially, the Court upheld the validity of preventive detention if done under “procedure established by law.”
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Overruled the narrow interpretation of Gopalan.
- Now, any preventive detention must be fair, just, and reasonable, aligning with Articles 14 and 19.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017)
- Reaffirmed that liberty is a fundamental value, and any law restricting it must be proportionate and justified.
Judgment
- The Court would examine whether Gopal’s preventive detention followed:
- The due procedure under the preventive detention statute,
- Was non-arbitrary and fair, and
- Complied with the safeguards under Article 22.
- If Gopal was not informed of the grounds of detention, or not provided an opportunity to make a representation, or if the detention was unreasonable or discriminatory, it would violate Articles 14, 19, and 21.
