Constitutional safeguards against misuse of preventive detention laws:
1. Article 22
a)Detained person must be informed of grounds immediately.
b)Right to consult a lawyer.
c)Must be produced before an Advisory Board within 12 days.
Maximum detention without approval is 3 months.
2. Judicial Review
Courts can examine if detention is legal and not arbitrary.
3. Compensation
Courts may award compensation if detention is illegal.
These ensure preventive detention is not misused.

Article 22(4) states that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an Advisory Board reports sufficient cause for extended detention. The detainee is entitled to know the grounds of his detention.

Constitutional Safeguards Under Article 22
Article 22(4) to (7) of the Indian Constitution outlines specific protections for individuals subjected to preventive detention, balancing state security needs with individual rights:

Maximum Period of Detention Without Advisory Board Review (Article 22(4)):
No law can authorize detention beyond three months unless an Advisory Board, consisting of persons qualified to be High Court judges, reviews the case and deems further detention necessary.
Safeguard: This ensures an independent evaluation of the detention’s necessity, preventing prolonged arbitrary detention.
Critical Note: The Advisory Board’s composition and impartiality are crucial, but concerns arise when boards are perceived as government-aligned, potentially undermining their effectiveness.
Right to Communication of Grounds of Detention (Article 22(5)):
The detaining authority must communicate the grounds of detention to the detainee “as soon as may be” and provide the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention.
Safeguard: This enables the detainee to challenge the detention’s legality and ensures transparency. The grounds must be clear, specific, and sufficient to allow a meaningful defense.
Judicial Clarification: In Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal (1975), the Supreme Court emphasized that vague or irrelevant grounds render detention invalid, reinforcing the need for precise communication.
Right to Make Representation (Article 22(5)):
The detainee has the right to submit a representation against the detention order, which must be considered expeditiously by the detaining authority or the Advisory Board.
Safeguard: This provides a mechanism for the detainee to contest the detention, ensuring due process.
Judicial Interpretation: In Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal (1970), the Court held that delays in considering representations violate Article 22(5), rendering detention unconstitutional.
Parliamentary Oversight (Article 22(7)):
Parliament can prescribe the maximum period of detention and the procedure for Advisory Boards, ensuring legislative checks on executive power.
Safeguard: This subjects preventive detention laws to democratic scrutiny, preventing unchecked executive discretion.
Limitation: Article 22(7)(c) allows Parliament to relax certain safeguards (e.g., not disclosing facts in the public interest), which can weaken protections if misused.
Additional Constitutional Safeguards
Judicial Review (Articles 32 and 226):
While Article 22 permits preventive detention, the judiciary can review detention orders under Articles 32 (Supreme Court) and 226 (High Courts) to ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements.
Safeguard: Courts can quash detention orders if they are arbitrary, mala fide, or based on irrelevant grounds. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) (later refined), the Supreme Court held that detention must adhere to the procedure established by law under Article 21.
Key Case: In Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) (ADM Jabalpur), the majority controversially limited judicial review during the Emergency, but this was overruled in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which expanded the scope of Article 21 to include fairness and non-arbitrariness in detention procedures.
Protection Against Arbitrary Executive Action (Article 21):
Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by a procedure established by law, which must be just, fair, and reasonable post-Maneka Gandhi.
Safeguard: Preventive detention laws must conform to principles of natural justice, and courts can strike down detentions lacking due process.
Example: In R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981), the Court upheld the validity of preventive detention laws but stressed that their application must not violate Article 21’s fairness requirement.
Equality Before Law (Article 14):
Preventive detention must not be discriminatory or arbitrary, as per Article 14’s guarantee of equality.
Safeguard: Detention orders based on selective or biased application can be challenged. In Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966), the Court invalidated a detention order for being vague and disproportionate, emphasizing that restrictions must be rational and non-arbitrary.
Statutory Safeguards in Preventive Detention Laws
National Security Act, 1980: Requires grounds of detention to be communicated within five days (extendable to 10 days in exceptional cases) and mandates Advisory Board review within seven weeks.
UAPA, 1967: Section 43D imposes strict conditions for bail, but detentions must still comply with Article 22 safeguards, including Advisory Board review.
Safeguard: Statutory timelines and procedures reinforce constitutional protections, though delays or non-compliance can lead to judicial intervention.
Landmark Judgments Reinforcing Safeguards
A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982):
The Supreme Court upheld the National Security Act but emphasized strict adherence to Article 22 safeguards, particularly timely communication of grounds and Advisory Board review. It struck down provisions allowing detention without sufficient cause.
Significance: Reinforced the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing preventive detention for constitutional compliance.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997):
While primarily addressing custodial rights, the Court’s guidelines on arrests and detentions extend to preventive detention, ensuring transparency and accountability to prevent misuse.
Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India (1995):
The Court held that the detaining authority must independently consider the detainee’s representation, not merely rely Tenant: on the Advisory Board, strengthening the right under Article 22(5).
Critical Analysis
Strengths:
Robust Framework: Article 22’s safeguards, combined with judicial review under Articles 21, 14, 32, and 226, provide a multi-layered check against arbitrary detention.
Judicial Oversight: Cases like Khudiram Das and A.K. Roy demonstrate the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual liberty, ensuring detention orders are not based on vague or mala fide grounds.
Dynamic Interpretation: Post-Maneka Gandhi, the expansion of Article 21 to include fairness and reasonableness has strengthened protections against misuse.
Weaknesses:
Limited Disclosure: Article 22(7)(c) allows authorities to withhold facts “in the public interest,” which can hinder effective representation, as seen in cases like Naseem Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1972).
Implementation Gaps: Delays in communicating grounds or constituting Advisory Boards, often due to bureaucratic inefficiencies, undermine safeguards.
Misuse in Practice: Laws like UAPA and NSA are criticized for being used to silence dissent or target minorities, as highlighted in reports by organizations like Amnesty India. For instance, detentions under UAPA for alleged “anti-national” activities have raised concerns about vague grounds and prolonged detention without trial.
Weak Advisory Boards: The effectiveness of Advisory Boards is questionable if members lack independence or expertise, and their proceedings are not always transparent.
Contemporary Challenges: The stringent bail provisions in laws like UAPA (Section 43D) effectively extend detention by placing a high burden on the accused to prove innocence, potentially conflicting with Article 21’s fairness requirement. The Supreme Court’s reluctance to grant bail in such cases, as seen in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali v. NIA (2019), has sparked debates about misuse.

the constitution provide the constitutionl writs that is article 32 and 226 as habeous corpus and present before the court.

Article 22(4) states that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an Advisory Board reports sufficient cause for extended detention. The detainee is entitled to know the grounds of his detention