Background:

The present case, originated from, a 24-year-old law student from Madhya Pradesh, who was jailed after intervening in a campus incident involving caste discrimination. Though he surrendered and was in judicial custody, the District Magistrate later issued a detention order under the National Security Act (NSA), which was extended repeatedly without new grounds. Even after Aniket was granted bail in January 2025, the NSA order kept him in custody. His father filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the legality of the detention. The case raises serious concerns about the misuse of preventive detention laws and the protection of individual liberty under the Constitution.

Issues

1. Whether preventive detention under the National Security Act can be sustained when the detainee is already in judicial custody and has been granted bail?

2. Whether the repeated extensions of the preventive detention order without fresh grounds or reassessment violate the principles of law?

3. Whether the authorities properly considered the detainee’s bail status and the necessity of detention in the interest of public order before extending the preventive detention?

Observations:

The following observations were made by the court:

• • The Court observed that preventive detention under the National Security Act cannot be justified when the detainee is already in judicial custody and granted bail in the underlying criminal case.
• • The District Magistrate failed to provide fresh and valid grounds for each extension of the detention order, instead relying on the same old reasons repeatedly.
• • The Court emphasized that each extension of preventive detention must be based on a fresh assessment of the threat to public order, and mere repetition of earlier grounds is impermissible.
• • The authorities did not adequately consider the fact that Aniket was granted bail and how that affected the necessity of continued detention under the NSA.
• • The Court held that the detention order was “wholly untenable” and that continued incarceration under NSA without proper justification violated fundamental rights.
• • It reiterated that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure and must be strictly scrutinized by the authorities and courts.

Decision:

The Supreme Court quashed the preventive detention order passed against Aniket under the National Security Act, holding it to be wholly untenable. It held that:

• • Since Aniket was already in judicial custody and had been granted bail in the underlying criminal case, the continuation and multiple extensions of the detention order without fresh grounds were illegal.
• • It emphasized that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure requiring strict scrutiny and fresh justification at every stage.
• • Consequently, the Court ordered Aniket’s immediate release, underscoring the importance of safeguarding individual liberty and preventing misuse of preventive detention laws.

Why this case matters:

• • Protects individual liberty by preventing misuse of preventive detention when bail is granted.
• • Ensures authorities provide fresh reasons for every extension of detention.
• • Prevents unlawful double custody, no detention under NSA while in judicial custody.
• • Strengthens judicial oversight over preventive detention orders.
• • Reinforces fair procedure and accountability in applying preventive detention laws.

Laws related thereto:

Under BNS:

• Article 21: The Court found that preventive detention must respect this fundamental right and that arbitrary or unjustified detention breaches Article 21. The failure to reassess detention in light of bail violated this right.

• Article 22: The Court stressed these protections require that detention orders be clear, justified, and subject to proper legal process, which was not adhered to in the extensions of Aniket’s detention.

Under National Security Act, 1980:

• Section 3: Authorizes preventive detention if a person’s actions are deemed prejudicial to public order or the security of the state.

• Section 8: Provides the procedure for making the detention order and the requirement of grounds of detention to be communicated to the detainee within 5 days.

• Section 10: Mandates the requirement for the Advisory Board to review the detention order within a prescribed period to confirm the validity of detention.

Under BNSS:

• Section 187: Deals with judicial custody and procedures relating to the investigation and detention of an accused, including the right to bail.

Judicial Precedents:

• Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling (1962): The Court reaffirmed that preventive detention orders and their extensions must be based on fresh and valid grounds, and mere repetition of old reasons is impermissible.

• S.A. Vengara v. Union of India (1990): Emphasized the necessity of reassessing the threat to public order before extending detention and that each extension requires fresh grounds.

• Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi (2016): Held that grant of bail in the underlying criminal case is an important consideration against continuing preventive detention.

• Laxman Utekar v. State of Maharashtra (2021): Underlined that preventive detention must not be extended mechanically and that judicial custody and bail status must be considered before continuing detention.

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The foundational case for the protection of personal liberty under Article 21, emphasizing fair, just, and reasonable procedure