The judges were particularly critical of the use of preventive detention against journalists and social media commentators, saying this directly infringes upon the freedom of expression.
The detention of a ‘YouTube journalist’ under the “draconian” Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, arising from essentially a landlord-tenant dispute, prompted the Madras High Court’s stern warning to the state government over the “mechanical” use of the law.
In an order passed on December 30, a Division Bench of Justices S M Subramaniam and P Dhanabal held that the Tamil Nadu government’s “growing reliance” on the legislation— popularly known as the Goondas Act—risked eroding fundamental constitutional safeguards. Such powers cannot be exercised to stifle dissent or bypass ordinary criminal procedure, the bench said.
“The power of preventive detention is draconian in nature,” the High Court said, adding that any “callousness, motive, extraneous consideration, (or) attempt to settle political scores” must invite strict scrutiny and disciplinary consequences. Neither could preventive detention be used merely because criminal proceedings are pending, it said, warning that continued misuse of these powers would invite closer judicial scrutiny and possible disciplinary action against erring officials. “The liberty of the citizen is not a concession from the State but a constitutional guarantee.”
The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of the YouTuber, Varaaki, who was detained under the Act as “a sexual offender”. Noting that the detention stemmed from a landlord-tenant dispute, the bench said that the allegations relied upon were insufficient to justify preventive detention. “The personal liberty of a person is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution… any illegal detention… cannot be permitted to continue even for an hour.”
Giving the detainee interim bail for 12 weeks, the bench said its order should not be read as an endorsement of the allegations but a reaffirmation of constitutional principles. The court directed the state to file its counter-affidavit within a stipulated time.
The bench also observed that the authorities had invoked the Act in a “mechanical” manner, without demonstrating how the alleged conduct posed a genuine threat to public order. “Mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not enough,” the court said, adding that the concept of public order has a far narrower legal meaning than routine law-and-order situations.
The judges traced this distinction through established Supreme Court jurisprudence, noting that “every breach of peace does not amount to disturbance of public order” and that preventive detention must be reserved for situations where conduct threatens the community at large, not individual disputes. The court cited earlier rulings that emphasised that even serious allegations cannot justify preventive detention unless they demonstrate a real and proximate threat to public order.
The bench also expressed concern about handling of habeas corpus petitions, particularly repeated adjournments sought by prosecution, causing petitions to be heard only near the expiry of detention periods. Such delays, it noted, render the constitutional remedy “meaningless”, allow illegal detention to continue unchecked, and erode public confidence in the justice system.
Curated by James Chen
