Building safeguards

Building safeguards

Building safeguards


The Supreme Court’s comment that preventative detention statutes are a colonial relic and grant the state arbitrary powers is one more example of how such laws represent a perennial threat to personal liberty.


Points to Ponder:

  • The Supreme Court and the High Courts have often chastised the government for failing to adhere to procedural procedures when dealing with inmates under preventative detention statutes.
  • Although many detention orders are overturned on technical grounds, the relief achieved by detainees is generally insignificant because the orders are typically overturned after months of confinement.
  • Most preventive detentions are eventually terminated, with the most prevalent reason being an unexplained delay in the disposition of detainees’ representations against their detention.
  • Other reasons for detention orders being invalidated include failure to present appropriate grounds for detention or a delay in providing them.
  • Preventive detention rules have been abused, such as holding a guy as a ‘goonda’ for selling subpar chili seeds.
  • Because of the ‘Goondas Act,’ which encompasses offenders ranging from bootleggers to cyber-criminals, Tamil Nadu has the greatest number of preventative detentions in the country.
  • The law’s reach is rarely limited to persistent offenders and frequently extends to suspects in important cases.
  • Preventive detention is permitted under the Constitution, but it does not absolve the government of the responsibility to reduce crime through effective policing and fast trials, rather than depending on unrestricted power and discretion.

Goondas Act

  • The Goondas Act is an Indian statute that allows for the incarceration of those who are called “goondas.”
  • The name “goonda” translates loosely as “hooligan” or “thug.”The law is most commonly applied in the state of Tamil Nadu.
  • The Goondas Act covers a wide range of offenses, such as bootlegging, slum grabbing, forest offenses, film piracy, sex offenses, and cybercrime.
  • The law’s scope is not usually limited to repeat offenders, and it is frequently utilized to imprison suspects in important instances.
  • The statute is frequently chastised for being overbroad and enabling arbitrary detention of individuals.
  • Because to the statute, Tamil Nadu has the greatest number of preventive detentions in the country.
  • The Goondas Act’s detentions are subject to the same procedural safeguards as other preventative detention legislation.

Ways to Prevent the Misuse

  • Stricter adherence to procedural safeguards: This includes presenting timely grounds for detention, providing clear and readable copies of documents, and speeding the disposition of detainee representations.
  • Tighter constraints on the scope of preventive detention laws: Preventive detention laws should be limited to persistent offenders and serious suspicions.
  • Regular review and monitoring of preventive detentions: To prevent the arbitrary application of legislation, preventive detentions should be reviewed and monitored regularly.
  • Transparency and accountability should be improved: The government should publish regular reports on the use of preventive detention laws and make information about detainees and their cases public.
  • Strengthening the criminal justice system: Instead of depending on preventative detention laws, the criminal justice system should be improved to ensure that efficient policing and quick trials are employed to reduce crime.
  • Judicial oversight: The courts should be actively involved in scrutinizing preventative detention decisions and ensuring that procedural safeguards are observed and that detention orders are not arbitrary or misused.


Similar Topics:

Preventive Detentions rose in 2021

Prison Reforms