Madras High Court Detention Law: Calling preventive detention laws “draconian” as well as “anti-thesis” to the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution, the Madras High Court recently observed that personal liberty is not a concession given by state and granted 12 weeks interim bail to a journalist.
The observations came from a bench of Justices S M Subramaniam and P Dhanabal hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by wife of a YouTube investigative journalist who had been detained under the Tamil Nadu preventive detention law.
“Personal liberty is not a concession given by State. It is the duty mandated on the State under Constitution. Thus, failure to protect the personal liberty of the citizen by the State would result in unconstitutionality. An aggrieved person is empowered to sue the State and its authorities for appropriate relief under law including claiming of damages,” the order passed on December 30 last year said.
Background
The case originated from a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of the journalist, 51, challenging the detention of her husband under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982), where he was branded a “sexual offender”.
The detention order had been passed by the on December 13, 2025.
The events leading to the detention began earlier, in 2024, when several criminal cases were registered against Varaki. Five such cases were challenged before the Madras High Court. On February 13, 2025, a single judge of the high court transferred all five cases to the CBCID for investigation.
On December 3, 2025, relying on the five earlier cases and the ground case, Chennai Police passed the preventive detention order under Act 14 of 1982, categorising Varaki as a “sexual offender”.
Story continues below this ad
While in prison, the journalist submitted a representation against the detention on December 12, 2025.
Hi wife claimed that the prison authorities forwarded this representation to the government only on December 15, 2025, and it was received on December 16, 2025.
She alleged that it was rejected on technical grounds of delay, thereby denying Varaki a prompt and effective consideration of his representation.
Challenging these actions, she filed the present habeas corpus petition, which came up before the high court on December 26, 2025, and was finally heard on December 30, 2025.
Story continues below this ad
Arguments
Advocates Arun Anbumani, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the detention was unconstitutional, pointing out that the alleged “ground case” stemmed from a routine landlord–tenant dispute which ought to have been addressed through civil remedies.
He submitted that abusive language, even if assumed, could not justify invoking preventive detention meant to address threats to public order.
The counsel further contended that procedural safeguards were violated, including delay in forwarding the detenu’s representation to the government.
He contended that her husband, a YouTube journalist known for raising dissenting views against the state and political leadership, had been targeted to curb his voice.
Story continues below this ad
The counsel argued that multiple criminal cases were registered against him on flimsy grounds and that a landlord–tenant dispute dated November 30 was converted into the “ground case” to justify preventive detention.
The state, represented by senior advocate Vikas Singh, raised objections on maintainability and sought time to file a counter affidavit.
He raised preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable.
Observations
The bench underlined the constitutional limits on preventive detention, describing such powers as “exceptional and even draconian.”
Story continues below this ad
“Preventive detention laws are draconian. Power vests with the executive authorities to impose imprisonment. Thus, power to detain a person is to be exercised sparingly and with extreme caution,” it said.
It noted that detention is imposed without trial and therefore requires strict scrutiny, application of mind, and bona fide exercise of power.
“An illegal detention can never be allowed to continue since the right of personal liberty is a vital fundamental right ensured under the Constitution of India to citizens,” said the court.
The court cautioned that branding journalists or social media commentators as offenders and clamping detention orders on them would directly infringe freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Story continues below this ad
Outlining that the vision of the law makers is to ensure free voice for all and that “shall be protected under the Constitution and by the Constitutional Courts”, the bench said if the state machinery starts hunting down each and every views and opinion, the voices will neither be brought down nor will this yield any viable result.
“The beauty of our democracy lies in the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom and when the State Machinery themselves starts stifling with litigations, the people lose a faith in the democracy,” it said.
Failure on the part of the authorities to exercise the power of detention in good faith must be viewed seriously by the courts, the court said.
The bench added, if callousness, motive, extraneous consideration, settling political scores, or silencing dissenting voices is established through facts and documents, the concerned authorities must face disciplinary proceedings under relevant service rules.
Story continues below this ad
The court emphasised that because preventive detention occurs without a trial, the state must not approve such orders as a matter of routine; the government is required to exercise this power with deliberate care rather than as a standard formality.
“Application of mind, scrutinisation of relevant factors are of paramount importance to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. The State being the custodian of citizens must exercise the power of preventive detention with extreme care,” it said.
Stating that under the Constitution, the rapid resolution of Habeas Corpus petitions is not merely a procedural goal but a fundamental right inherent to personal liberty, the court said that cases involving fundamental rights must be prioritized to ensure they are settled without delay.
