The document discusses the provisions of preventive detention as outlined in Article 22 of the Indian Constitution, highlighting its differences from regular arrest, procedural safeguards, and its objective of preventing arbitrary detention. It details the clauses related to preventive detention, case laws such as A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras, and criticisms regarding the misuse of such laws, citing recent cases involving political figures. The document emphasizes preventive detention as a necessary measure in maintaining public order, despite its controversial nature.

1. PREVENTIVE DETENTION
Article- 22(4)(5)(6)(7) of
Constitution of India

2. Synopsis
 Introduction
 Difference between arrest and preventive detention
 Art.22 of the Constitution
 Explanation of clauses(4),(5),(6),(7) of Art.22
 Object behind the right
 Case Laws
 Criticism on preventive detention laws
 Recent incidences of Preventive Detention

3. Introduction
 Dictionary meaning of the words preventive detention is the
imprisonment of a person with the aim of preventing them
from committing further offences or of maintaining public
order.
 The Centre and also State can make laws for preventive
Detention according to entry (3) Of List 3 and entry 9 of
List 1 of 7th Schedule.

4. ARREST PREVENTIVE DETENTION
-Punitive measure -Preventive measure
-To punish for offence -To prevent from doing offence
-Ordinary laws are applicable for
arrest
-Person can be detained only under
preventive laws
Difference between Arrest and
Preventive detention

5. Art.22
 Art.22- Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases-
(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being
informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied
the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced
before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest
excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of
the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said
period without the authority of a magistrate.
(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply—
(a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or
(b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for
preventive detention.

6. (4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a
person for a longer period than three months unless—
(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are
qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the
expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion
sufficient cause for such detention:
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise the detention of
any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by
Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or
(b) such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law
made by Parliament under sub clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).
(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law
providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon
as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has
been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a
representation against the order.

7. (6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order as is
referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be
against the public interest to disclose.
(7) Parliament may by law prescribe—
(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in
which, a person may be detained for a period longer than three months under
any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an
Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause
(4);
(b) the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes
of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and
(c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry
under sub-clause (a) of clause (4).

8. 22(4)Detention
Not more than 3
months
22(4)(b) Provisions of law
EXCEPTIONS
22(4)(a)Advisory
Board’s opinion
22(7)(a) Parliament
prescribe cases where
no need of opinion of
Advisory Board
Parliament may prescribe
22 (7)(c)Procedure of Advisory Board
22 (7)(b)Maximum period
EXCEPTIONS
Art.22 (4) and Art.22(7)

9. Art.22(5)
Right to be
informed about
grounds
Opportunity of
representation
Exception
Art.22(6) Public
interest
Art.22(5) and Art.22(6)

10. Object
Article 22 provides procedural safeguards against
arbitrary arrest and detention. It is applicable to all
individuals (Citizens and non-citizens).
It does not confer a Fundamental Right on an individual
against arrest and detention. It only extends certain
procedural safeguards in case of arrest of individual
Thus it comes into play only after a person has been
arrested or detained. Its object is to prevent arbitrary
arrest and detention by the State.

11. -India is a country having multi-ethnic, multi-religious and
multilingual society. Caste and communal violence is very common
in India. Apart from that the circumstances at the time , when our
constitution came in to force demanded such provisions. This is
evident from following statement of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar
“….in the present circumstances of the country, it may be necessary
for the executive to detain a person who is tempering either with the
public order or with the defence services of the country. In such case, I
don’t think that the exigency of the liberty of an individual shall be above
the interest of the state” -Dr. B R Ambedkar.
- So in short PDA is a ‘necessary evil’.

12. Case Laws
 A.K.Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950)
- A.K.Gopalan, a communist leader was detained in Madras jail under
Preventive detention Act,1950. He challenged his detention on the
ground of fundamental right and also questioned the law.
-The Court held that Preventive detention does not abridge the
detainee’s right to freedom (Art.19).
-Art.22 empower the Parliament to make laws on preventive detention.
-A law that affected life and personal liberty can not be declared
unconstitutional only on account that it did not follow due process of
natural justice.
-In this way it was narrow interpretation of Art.22 also.

13. Criticism
 It is worth bearing in mind that no other civilized country, including
Britain which brought Preventive Detention laws here, felt compelled
to introduce such laws during peace time. Even during the last World
War, most European countries and the USA, who were all directly
involved in the war, had no such law.
 lacking clear guidance from the Constitution, courts have applied
vague and toothless standards - such as the subjective "satisfaction" of
the detaining authority test - to govern the implementation of
preventive detention laws.
 Misuse of various preventive laws for political rivalry.

14. Recent use of Preventive laws
 Farooq Abdullah has been
detained under the Public Safety
Act.
 PSA allows the government to
detain a person for up to 2 years
without a trial.
 Farooq Abdullah has been
detained at his residence by the
government under PSA and his
house has been declared as
subsidiary jail.

15. Mehbooba Mufti, Omar
Abdullah put under preventive
detention amid possibility of
law and order crisis in J&K

16. • Order of preventive
detention against
Mehbooba Mufti
under Public Safety
Act.