In a significant ruling that underscores the sanctity of personal liberty, the Madras High Court has delivered a sharp rebuke to the Tamil Nadu government for its "mechanical" and growing reliance on the stringent preventive detention law, popularly known as the Goondas Act. The court's stern warning came while granting interim bail to a YouTuber, Varaaki, who was detained under the Act as a "sexual offender," in a case that originated from a landlord-tenant dispute.
Court Condemns Draconian Use of Power
A Division Bench comprising Justices S M Subramaniam and P Dhanabal, in an order passed on December 30, held that the state's invocation of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act in this manner risked eroding fundamental constitutional safeguards. The bench unequivocally stated that "the power of preventive detention is draconian in nature" and cannot be used to stifle dissent or bypass ordinary criminal procedures.
The judges emphasised that any "callousness, motive, extraneous consideration, or attempt to settle political scores" in using this power must invite strict judicial scrutiny and disciplinary consequences. They reaffirmed that "the liberty of the citizen is not a concession from the State but a constitutional guarantee."
Bail Granted in Landlord-Tenant Dispute Case
The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of YouTuber Varaaki. The bench noted that his detention stemmed from allegations arising from a landlord-tenant dispute, which were insufficient to justify the extreme step of preventive detention. Highlighting the paramount importance of personal liberty, the court declared, "The personal liberty of a person is a fundamental right... any illegal detention... cannot be permitted to continue even for an hour."
Granting the detainee interim bail for 12 weeks, the bench clarified that its order should not be seen as an endorsement of the allegations against him but as a firm reaffirmation of constitutional principles. The court directed the state to file its counter-affidavit within a stipulated timeframe.
Narrow Legal Definition of 'Public Order' Cited
The bench observed that authorities had invoked the Goondas Act in a "mechanical" manner, failing to demonstrate how the alleged conduct posed a genuine threat to public order. The court drew a crucial legal distinction, noting that "mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not enough" to invoke preventive detention.
Citing established Supreme Court jurisprudence, the judges explained that the concept of "public order" has a far narrower legal meaning than routine law-and-order situations. "Every breach of peace does not amount to disturbance of public order," the court said, adding that preventive detention must be reserved for conduct that threatens the community at large, not individual disputes.
The court also expressed grave concern over the handling of habeas corpus petitions, criticising the prosecution for seeking repeated adjournments. This practice, the bench noted, often results in petitions being heard only near the expiry of detention periods, rendering the constitutional remedy "meaningless" and allowing illegal detention to continue unchecked, thereby eroding public confidence in the justice system.
In a pointed remark with wide implications, the judges were particularly critical of the use of preventive detention against journalists and social media commentators, stating that this directly infringes upon the freedom of expression. "The Constitution does not permit the State to stifle voices under the guise of maintaining order," the Madras High Court asserted, sending a clear message against the misuse of power to curb dissent.
