In a powerful defense of personal freedom, the Madras High Court has come down heavily on the Tamil Nadu government for the alleged misuse of the stringent Goondas Act. The court explicitly stated that it will not tolerate the violation of the fundamental right to liberty of any person, even for a single hour.
Court's Stern Warning to Authorities
A vacation bench comprising Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal, on Tuesday, directed the Tamil Nadu Home Secretary to initiate departmental action against officials who invoke the Goondas Act for extraneous reasons in an erroneous and mechanical manner. The judges expressed deep concern over the pattern of using the act to prolong imprisonment.
"Authorities are invoking the Goondas Act to prolong the imprisonment of the persons. If this is permitted, it will have disastrous consequences," the bench cautioned. Emphasizing constitutional values, they added, "The right to liberty is enunciated and enshrined in the Constitution. It is a fundamental right. Any detention cannot be allowed to go on even for one hour if it is found to be contrary to law or done for extraneous reasons."
Case of YouTuber Varaaki
The court's remarks came while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Neelima, the wife of YouTuber Varaaki, challenging his detention under the Goondas Act. The bench subsequently granted Varaaki a three-month interim bail.
The sequence of events reveals a contentious application of the preventive detention law. Varaaki was first arrested on November 30 on charges of sexually abusing his landlord's wife. He had rented the property for his office use. Later, on December 13, the Chennai City Commissioner of Police passed a separate order to detain him under the preventive provisions of the Goondas Act.
Insufficient Grounds for Preventive Detention
During the hearing, the bench observed that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient grounds to justify placing Varaaki under preventive detention. The court drew parallels with a recent Supreme Court order that quashed the preventive detention of blogger 'Savukku' Shankar, citing a similar overreach.
The judges underscored that the state must exercise utmost restraint while using its power to detain a person under the Act. The order for interim bail and the directive for departmental action against erring officials mark a significant judicial pushback against the arbitrary use of powerful laws that curtail personal liberty.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary's role as the guardian of fundamental rights and sends a clear message to law enforcement agencies about the limits of their power.
