---

“The detention laws cannot be used to settle political scores or silence dissenting voices. Preventive detention laws are draconian.”

---

Madras High Court has described preventive detention laws as “draconian” and warned that they must not be used by the state to settle political scores or silence dissent, stressing that such powers should be exercised only in rare circumstances, Live Law reported.

Noting the exceptional nature of preventive detention, the court said the authority to imprison individuals without trial must be used “sparingly, with extreme caution,”

“The detention laws cannot be used to settle political scores or silence dissenting voices. Preventive detention laws are draconian,” a division bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice P. Dhanabal said. ” 0147 Power vests with the executive authorities to impose imprisonment, and therefore the power to detain a person must be exercised sparingly and with extreme caution. Any failure on the part of the detaining or police authorities to exercise such power in good faith must be viewed seriously by the courts.”

The bench made the observation while hearing a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of Varaaki, a YouTuber and investigative journalist, under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. He had been booked as a “sexual offender,” a move his wife alleged was motivated by his criticism of political and executive authorities in the state.

The judges said courts must take a strict view when detention powers are exercised without bona fide intent and added that the state cannot treat approval of detention orders as a routine administrative act.

“Any callousness, motive, extraneous consideration, settling of political scores, or silencing of dissenting voices, if established through facts and documents, must result in disciplinary proceedings against the detaining or police authorities. The State is not expected to approve detention orders in a routine manner,” the court said.

The bench underlined that preventive detention directly affects personal liberty, which it said was not a privilege granted by the government but a constitutional obligation.

“The State, being the custodian of its citizens, must exercise preventive detention powers with extreme care. Personal liberty is a constitutional mandate. Failure to protect it would result in unconstitutionality, and an aggrieved citizen is entitled to sue the State and its authorities for appropriate relief, including damages,” the bench added.

During the hearing, the state raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition and sought time to file a counter affidavit under the Madras High Court Writ Rules. The court rejected the request, holding that habeas corpus petitions demand urgent consideration as they involve fundamental rights and personal liberty.

The judges noted that five adverse cases cited against Varaaki had earlier been transferred to the CB-CID by a single judge of the High Court, who had observed that the cases appeared to have been foisted with mala fide intent.

Another case relied upon by the authorities was found to be a landlord-tenant dispute that could have been addressed under rent control laws.

The court granted Varaaki interim bail for 12 weeks and ordered his release on execution of a personal bond of 100,000 rupees before the superintendent of police. He was directed not to leave the country, influence witnesses, and to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.