Preventive Detention Laws Must Not Be Used To Settle Political Scores Or Silent Dissenting Voice: Madras High Court Grants Interim Bail To YouTube Journalist

It was remarked that if the State Machinery starts hunting down each and every view and opinion, the voices will neither be brought down nor will this yield any viable result.

​The Division Bench comprising Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice P. Dhanabal observed, “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. Failure on the part of the detaining authorities/police authorities to exercise the power of detention in good faith must be viewed seriously by the courts. Any callousness, motive, extraneous consideration, settle political scores or silent the dissenting voice if established on facts and through documents, the detaining authorities/police authorities concerned should be subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the State under the relevant Service Rules. The State is not expected to approve the detention orders in a routine manner.”

Advocate Arun Anbumani appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas Senior Advocate Vikas Singh and Additional PP R. Muniyapparaj appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

A Habeas Corpus Petition was filed assailing the detention order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City. The husband of the Petitioner was a YouTube journalist, more specifically an investigative journalist, raises dissenting voices against the executives and politicians in the State of Tamil Nadu. He is running a YouTube channel. He was clamped under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 14 of 1982”) and detained as “Sexual Offender”.

Contention of the Parties

It was argued by the Petitioner that the detention was a result of the detenue's dissenting voice against the government and an attempt to silence him. They contended that the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing at the time of arrest as mandated by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, a representation sent to the government was not considered promptly by the jail authorities.

The Respondent raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the Habeas Corpus Petition, stating the remand order was not challenged. They requested eight weeks to file a counter-affidavit as per Rule 24(2) of the Writ Rules of the Madras High Court.

Observations of the Court

The Court noted that the First Information Report (FIR) for the ground case appeared to be a civil landlord-tenant dispute where criminal provisions were incorporated by including "abusive language". The Bench emphasized that the constitutional mandate of informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest in writing must be strictly followed. It also criticized the "callous and casual" manner in which jail authorities handled the detenue's representation, noting they failed their duty to transmit it promptly.

“Constitutional Courts shall never stifle or attempt to strangulate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Spirit of Article 19(1)(a) shall be ever evolving and the reasonable restrictions shall also shift its shape to stay in tune with Article 19(1)(a). The vision of our Law Makers is to ensure free voice for all and that shall be protected under the Constitution and by the Constitutional Courts. 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. As far as the modern-day social media activities are concerned, no doubt it is to be regulated in accordance with law, and in the event of any violation, appropriate actions are to be initiated. But filing criminal case after criminal case and clamping such journalists or you-tubers under Act 14 of 1982, at no circumstances be allowed by the Constitutional Courts, since it will directly infringe the fundamental rights ensured under the Constitution of India.”, the Court observed.

Even though the Respondent-State sought time to file a counter, the Court said that when the personal liberty of a person is infringed, the constitutional Courts are not expected to be lenient or wait for a longer period until the state file counter.

It was observed, “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. In such circumstances, High Court is expected to exercise its powers conferred under Article 226 of the constitution of India for grant of interim bail to the detenu. The detention laws cannot be used to settle political scores or silence the dissenting voices.”

The Court noted that the State seeks repeated adjournments for filing a counter, most of the Habeas Corpus Petitions are taken up for hearing during fag end of the period of expiry of detention orders. Thus, the institution of Habeas Corpus Petitions by the detenues became frustrated and meaningless, since they are unable to secure any relief.

“Preventive detention laws are anti-thesis to fundamental rights enunciated under Part III of the Constitution . Misuse of power result in infringement of fundamental rights shall not be viewed lightly by the Government and Courts. Relief providing mechanisms contemplated under law are expected to act swiftly. Speedy disposal of Habeas Corpus Petitions on personal liberty/fundamental right by itself is a basic right of citizen under the Constitution of India. Cases touching upon the fundamental rights are to be heard on priority basis to ensure speedy disposal.”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court granted interim bail to the detenu.

Cause Title: Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Ors. [HCP No. 2714 of 2025]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Arun Anbumani and P Rajkumar.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh and Additional PP R.Muniyapparaj

Click here to read/download the Order