GHULAM QADIR KHANDEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Preventive Detention is anathema to a democratic polity having its foundation on personal liberty and rule of law. The Supreme Court almost at the dawn of independence in the very first petition to challenge Preventive Detention and "invoke guaranteed protection of the Court", reported as , AIR 1950 SC 27 called Preventive Detention "Sinister-looking feature, so strangely out of place in a democratic constitution." The Court observed "Preventive detention laws are repugnant to democratic constitutions and they cannot be found to exist in any of the democratic Countries of the World." Preventive detention laws, all the same in words of Supreme Court "have taken root" and "have become a permanent part of the statute book of this Country."

(2.) Preventive Detention, over the years has come to be accepted as a tool to prevent activities of an individual detrimental to public order and security of the State so that the rights guaranteed under the Constitution remain meaningful to the people at large. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Chaya Ghoshal commenting on the need to have Preventive detention Laws on the statute book has observed:

(3.) Preventive detention, and Preventive laws nevertheless, have always attracted "Hard look" from the Courts. It has been endeavour of the courts to see that the preventive detention laws, that enable the State to put behind the bars a person without formal charge or trial, are in conformity with Constitutional mandate and are not misused.