Preventive Detention Laws Allow State To Carve Out Exception For Its Lawlessness: Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate

4/5/2021 Preventive Detention Laws Allow State To Carve Out Exception For Its Lawlessness : Mihir Desai, Senior
Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate
Hi, kush kalra Logout
BOOKMARKS TOP STORIES NEWS UPDATES COLUMNS INTERVIEWS FOREIGN/INTERNATIONAL


ENVIRONMENT RTI KNOW THE LAW VIDEOS SPONSORED ROUND UPS
LAW SCHOOL CORNER JOB UPDATES BOOK REVIEWS EVENTS CORNER LAWYERS & LAW
FIRMS CARTOONS लाइव लॉ िहं दी

Home / Columns / Preventive Detention...
COLUMNS
Preventive Detention Laws Allow State To Carve

Out Exception For Its Lawlessness : Mihir Desai,
Senior Advocate
Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate 29 Nov 2020 12:44 PM
SHARE THIS -
https://www.livelaw.in/columns/preventive-detention-laws-allow-state-to-carve-out-exception-for-its-lawlessness-mihir-desai-senior-advocate-166547?… 1/29
4/5/2021 Preventive Detention Laws Allow State To Carve Out Exception For Its Lawlessness : Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate
[This lecture on the topic 'The Problem Of Preventive Detention In India' was delivered on
23 November 2020 as part of the KG Kannabiran Lectures on Law, Justice and Human
Rights – organised by the family of KG Kannabiran (1929-2010) to celebrate his life, work
and its futures].
ABSTRACT
Preventive detention laws and special legislations like UAPA -- anti-terror laws as they
are called -- allow the state to carve out exception for its own lawlessness. These are
the laws which permit the state to claim that we are governed by the rule of law and on
the other hand pass such legislations which violate the rule of law altogether. These are
the laws which go against the basic tenets of the constitution, such as freedom,
equality, right to life, liberty etc. It therefore becomes important to look at these laws
which gives an exceptional power to the state over citizens -- to arrest them, to detain
them, to charge them with offences which otherwise they may not be able to charge
them with, keep them behind bars for years together, and also for ensuring that dissent
in all forms is crushed.
Also Read - 'Phishing – The Modern Day Techdemic'
I am extremely thankful to Kalpana and Vasanth for giving me this opportunity of
speaking in the memory of somebody who one always considered to be the doyen of the
human rights movement in India -- not just as a lawyer but also as an activist. I did not
have the opportunity of working with him on a legal brief but I have had the opportunity
of participating with him in various meetings, various fact nding tribunals. In fact Mr.
Kannabiran passed away before the present national regime of Mr. Modi came about --
and possibly if he was alive he might have been in jail today looking at the way things are
going. In 2002 after the riots in Gujarat when Mr. Modi was the Chief Minister, we had
together participated in a tribunal -- an exhaustive tribunal which went on over weeks and
weeks concerning the violence in Gujarat. And of course one has met him at other times
also. So the memories of Mr. Kannabiran are very, very fond.
Also Read - Selective Activism And Public Faith In Regulators
Everybody knows that his passion was as a lawyer for the defence in most of the cases --
and his critical insight -- I feel that his book, The Wages of Impunity (2004) should be
made a compulsory reading in all law institutions and also non-law institutions where
social sciences are being taught. I would like to quote from what he says in the book:
'While the rule of law is a civilising factor, it is at the same time an instrument that
facilitates the uncritical acceptance of the deployment of violence for governance and to
justify war. This interplay of violence and power has little to do with the ideology that
states or governments profess' (p. 2).
Also Read - Book Review – Ambedkar's Preamble
This is precisely what I am going to elaborate and talk about today, but before I do that I
just wanted to quote one more paragraph from another article from the same book
where he says:
'Political discontent which was genuine to start with has never since been examined and
no attempts have been made to resolve it. Instead discontent has been allowed to fester
to be dealt with later as a law and order issue. That is discontent was outlawed de facto
without overtly banning the activity. After the 44th Amendment it was no longer possible
to invoke Emergency provisions to contain internal disturbance. They can only be invoked
when there is a threat of armed rebellion within. When this amendment was brought
about, the obvious intention was to prevent the state from frequently and on the slightest
pretext resorting to emergency provisions to impose an arbitrary, authoritarian rule.
Ironically this amendment seems to have given more space to the executive to introduce
repressive legislation without the necessity of suspending any of the fundamental rights.'
(p. 74).
Also Read - Article 21 In Prison
And then he goes on to speak about how TADA etc. were introduced by the 44th
Amendment permitting such enactments to be introduced. Obviously he is a major critic
of the Emergency period. But even post-Emergency, his insights are quite amazing in
various aspect which he covers in the book. Let me go into two issues that he was very
passionate about, on which he has written and on which he has handled hundreds of
cases. One is the issue concerning preventive detention; and the second is special
legislations such as TADA and POTA and UAPA, ie, the amendments to the UAPA.
The reason why I want to go into this is that if one looks at the situation today, we need
to put the detention laws and UAPA in their context. It is important to remember that
most of the detention laws came not necessarily during the NDA government or during
the BJP government. Majority of them came (a) through the Constitution and thereafter
through various legislations passed by various Congress governments. The reason why I
am going into these two aspects -- preventive detention and special legislations -- anti-
terror laws as they call it -- is because these are the laws which allow the state to carve
out exception for its own lawlessness. These are the laws which permit the state to on
the one hand say that we are governed by the rule of law and on the other hand pass
such legislations which violate the rule of law altogether. These are the laws which go
against the basic tenets of the constitution, such as freedom, equality, right to life, liberty
etc. So these are the laws, which, while they are within the framework of the rule of law,
are actually in violation of the rule of law. And that is why it becomes important to look at
these laws which gives an exceptional power to the state over citizens -- to arrest them,
to detain them, to charge them with offences which otherwise they may not be able to
charge them with, keep them behind bars for years together, and also for ensuring that
dissent in all forms is crushed.
The reason why these laws become important today is because if we look at the last ve
or six years, I feel there has been a consistent and strong hollowing-out of institutions of
accountability which are required in a democracy. Why do I say there has been a
hollowing-out? If you see, under the Constitution as well as under various legislations, the
Executive as well as the Legislature are required to be accountable to the people in
various ways. One obvious way we know is of course elections -- every ve years. That is
one way of being accountable. But apart from elections there are various institutions set
up such as the Election Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the
Parliament itself, the Lokayukta, the Right to Information Act and various provisions
under that Act -- these are various institutions by which you can hold the Executive as
well as the Legislature accountable. We have seen that consistently there has been an
erosion of these institutions.
One can go on giving examples of how this erosion has happened, but just to give one or
two examples, if you look at the Election Commission, you had ve orders in the last
election, where out of three Election Commissioners, one said that Mr. Modi has violated
the Code of Conduct. On all ve occasions, the other two disagreed. But that is ne, but
they did not allow the dissent to be recorded; they did not allow the dissent to come out
in public. And then this very Election Commissioner who gave a dissenting opinion --he
and his wife immediately faced Income Tax ordeals. The law was used in order to
threaten them, in order to terrorise them, and nally this gentleman had to leave. So that
is as far as the Election Commission is concerned.
A similar thing happens with the CBI. We all know of the dispute between the Director
and the Joint Director of CBI. Finally the Director was removed apparently because he
wanted to investigate the Rafale deal, he was removed overnight although there was no
power to remove him, somebody else was put in his place, etc. And judiciary we know.
Initially the attempt was to somehow create a problem within the judiciary through NJAC
-- the National Judicial Appointments Commission for appointment of judges of the
higher courts -- Supreme Court struck it down but the Executive has found a way around
it and has been able to put pressure on the judiciary in various ways -- through the IB,
through not responding to any request from the judiciary, through helping individual
members of the judiciary out when they are in trouble (such as trouble with sexual
harassment case, such as the trouble with the Chief Minister committing suicide and
naming some of the judges...). In all these respects, the Executive has been able to tame
the judiciary.
Similarly with the RBI. You rst had Raghuram Rajan who was removed because he did
not agree; then they put their own man, Urijit Patel, who also did not agree so he was
removed and a third person has been brought in...Lokayukta hardly functions. Nobody
was appointed for a long time. CAG -- now they have Mr. GC Murmu who has been
appointed as the head of the CAG who was the Principal Secretary during the Gujarat
violence in Gujarat, during CM Modi's time who is under lot of cloud for various other
reasons. Parliament itself is not allowed to function properly because you have a
situation whereby question hour is taken away; various laws being passed as Money Bills
making Rajya Sabha redundant, you have the entire o ce of the Leader of Opposition
being done away with because of which on many of the appointments committees you
don't have any member from the opposition; so what the Prime Minister says goes
through.
There is a constant hollowing out of institutions of accountability apart from three other
things: if you look at educational institutions, a complete erosion of autonomy of
educational institutions -- violence, state violence being used within educational
institutions, whether it is Aligarh, whether it is Jamia, whether it is JNU, one sees that
constantly happening. You have similarly, the media being completely placed under
control -- either the channels are owned by some people from the government or through
the method of advertising or through the method now of using the UAPA to arrest
journalists bringing out a chilling effect on journalists. These are various ways. Finally the
civil society organisations -- the attempt in various ways either by ling cases against
them, or using the FCRA (through amendment of FCRA or cancelling FCRA licenses)
thereby preventing them from acting as effectively as they want to. So there are various
ways in which the dissent of any kind is being crushed in our country today.
The two laws used primarily nowadays for crushing dissent are Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the various Preventive Detention Laws. including the
National Security Act which was used against Dr. Khafeel Khan in the context of what
had happened in UttarPradesh. But let me just go back. In 1919 you had this famous
Rowlatt Act being passed. What did Rowlatt Act provide? It provided essentially that
persons could be kept in jail without trial for upto two years. It was a prevention
detention law for two years without trial, and search without warrant. The title was
Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, 1919, popularly referred to as Rowlatt Act.
There was a huge protest against it, and one of the most signi cant symbol of the
protest is the Jallianwala Bagh massacre where the meeting took place to protest
against Rowlatt Act -- to protest against preventive detention law which people felt would
be misused. And of course thereafter Gandhiji's satyagraha started, the non-cooperation
movement, civil disobedience movement etc. started and the act had to be withdrawn
because the national movement believed that this law was what they called (perhaps
inappropriately) a 'black law' that needed to go because it allowed the police executive
power to preventively detain people. After the law was forced to be withdrawn, we had
the Defence of India Act, 1939.
The question arose during the Constituent Assembly debates and thereafter as to what
do you do with preventive detention. Throughout the national movement had always
opposed preventive detention. They said you charge a person, you convict a person, you
jail a person -- which is one thing. But without charging a person, without convicting a
person, how do you put him behind bars? The freedom movement was about freedom.
So you cannot put people behind bars unless you charge them and there is some kind of
conviction. This was the question before the Constituent Assembly. Do we have
preventive detention or not? Finally for whatever reasons, it was agreed, and I think it was
wrongly agreed, to have preventive detention law as part of the constitution – Article 22
of the Constitution of India permits preventive detention but in limited circumstances. So
– limited preventive detention for three months; more than that only if a review
committee actually goes through the grounds of detention and nds it justi able; review
committee must be headed by somebody who is quali ed to be a high court judge etc.
And more than that only if the Parliament by law prescribes it. Immediately after the
Constitution was formulated, you have the rst preventive detention law. This law had a
sunset clause. Namely, it will be there for two years, and at the end of two years it will be
seen if it should be continued or removed. This went on till 1967. Every two years the law
was renewed. In 1967, the Congress government lost about 6 state assemblies and felt
that one of the reasons why they lost was because preventive detention was being
misused, so they allowed it to lapse. But in another year's time we had MISA
(Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971) -- again a preventive detention law, which
was misused and became a symbol of government lawlessness during the Emergency --
so MISA was repealed in 1978 (Act 27 of 1978).
In 1980 the National Security Act (NSA) came, which is now the act which deals with
preventive detention other allowing preventive detention upto one year. This, unlike what
happened in the 50s and 60s was not a law meant for a year, or two years or three years.
The oppressive law, ie, the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 which initially was supposedly
temporary now acquired a permanence in 1980 by NSA being a permanent law for
preventive detention. It is no more subject to Parliamentary scrutiny every year or two
years – it is a permanent xture of our laws. Similarly, this happened with Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the other exception law -- the other terrorist law.
Before 1984- 85, you did not have any anti-terror laws in India. If anybody committed an
act of terrorism he could be tried -- so if somebody died you could be tried for murder,
you could be tried for rioting, you could be tried for attempt to murder, you could be tried
for dacoity, or whatever. In 1985, after the violence against Sikhs in 1984, Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) was brought in. Before 1985, actually there
was another act brought in, which was basically a precursor to TADA for one year. It was
The Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 (Act No. 61 of 1984) which
designated certain areas as terrorist affected and special laws be applied there. This was
replaced by TADA in 1985.
What did TADA do, which the other laws did not do -- apart from de ning what is a
terrorist activity etc. It did three or four things. And that is why I think it is important to
understand how TADA is different from the normal law. Under the normal Criminal
Procedure Code there are two rights available to a person who is likely to be arrested or
who is arrested. The rst is, I have a right to apply for anticipatory bail -- even if I am
charged with murder, I can still apply for anticipatory bail. If the court is satis ed that the
grounds against me are not strong enough, the court can very well say, 'grant him
anticipatory bail, there is no need to arrest him. Impose conditions, but don't arrest.' TADA
does away with anticipatory bail. If I am likely to be arrested under TADA, I cannot avail of
anticipatory bail. Similarly, as far as bail is concerned, ordinarily what happens is that
once you are arrested, the court will nd out whether you are likely to abscond, you are
likely to tamper with evidence or not, put some conditions and after some time grant you
bail. But under TADA, there is a special provision which says that you cannot grant bail to
somebody unless the court comes to the conclusion that the person is not guilty of such
offences. So at the stage of bail, before the evidence is led, before the trial begins, the
court should come to a conclusion that the person is not guilty of such offence and only
then bail can be granted. One can imagine how many people would have been granted
bail -- hardly anyone. So bail was basically denied -- although bail not jail is the principle
which is supposed to be followed. Thirdly, ordinarily police custody is for fteen days
when police torture you etc. -- now this was extended to one month. The chargesheet
https://www.livelaw.in/columns/preventive-detention-laws-allow-state-to-carve-out-exception-for-its-lawlessness-mihir-desai-senior-advocate-166547… 10/29
gives you the grounds on which you are arrested nally. Normally this has to be led
within 60 days. Under this Act there was an extended period of one year given to le a
chargesheet – which means for one year you do not know the detailed grounds on which
you are arrested. You will not get bail because no judge is going to say you are not guilty
if nobody knows why you are arrested. Effectively therefore, it allowed preventive
detention for one year without taking recourse to preventive detention laws. This is what
TADA did.
Apart from that, there were certain kinds of privilege given to witnesses – if the judge felt
that certain witnesses were sensitive, the accused was not entitled to know the names of
the witnesses. The names were not revealed till cross examination and thus there was no
time to prepare; and on the other hand the redacted statement of a witness could be
used to deny bail. You can imagine the kind of problem this created. Similarly, confession
of a co-accused which is otherwise not admissible in law, was made admissible. There
was a presumption -- suppose you were found at a place where arms are found, or
suppose your ngerprints were found at some place where there was an explosion, you
might be a passer-by or anybody, but there was a presumption that you are a terrorist and
the presumption had to be rebutted by you. There could be attachment of your property
etc. This was the situation as far as TADA was concerned. But TADA had a sunset clause
– it had to be reviewed every two years by the Parliament – so it would go back before
Parliament which would then have to decide as to whether to continue or not.
TADA was taken to the Supreme Court, which upheld the validity of TADA, with certain
generalisations/exceptions. But nally, there were major protests against TADA. The
reason was this. In 1994, there were 70,000 undertrials across India under TADA. They
were not subjected to trial, many of them were inside for years together because the trial
had not started and the rate of conviction under TADA despite all the exibilities and
relaxations in criminal law, was one percent compared to the conviction rate in normal
crimes which was at 44 percent at that time. It is important to remember the relaxations:
burden of proof has shifted, witnesses can be con dential, confessions made by you can
be used against a co-accused, and confessions made to a police o cer was permitted
unlike under normal criminal law where a confession has to be made before a
magistrate.
So you had one percent conviction rate, massive misuse of TADA, you had people who
had nothing to do with terrorism, persons who were basically opposed to rises in milk
prices in Gujarat being arrested under TADA, you had people striking for their genuine
rights as workers being arrested under TADA. Finally in 1995, the central government
allowed TADA to lapse.
After that, in 2000, the government formed a committee to decide whether we need a
permanent law for dealing with terrorism. In 2001 there were two important events. The
rst was the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the second the
Parliament attack in India. Using this as a reason, the government came up with what
was known as POTO – Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, 2001 – this later got
converted into POTA – Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. This is similar to TADA with
two or three differences. One, this is also subject to a sunset clause, i.e. every three years
it has to be reviewed, and unless it is speci cally continued by the Parliament it would
stand repealed – instead of 2 years under TADA, it was 3 years here. The confession
which was still permissible to be made to a police o cer and not necessarily to a
magistrate, was admissible as evidence but not against a co-accused unlike TADA. There
were two other aspects – one, a review committee was set up which would review cases
of people charged under TADA and assess whether these cases would be continued or
not. There was a kind of a lter. Second, as far as bail was concerned, like in TADA, bail
would not be possible unless a court nds 'not guilty' – but this was to appear only in the
rst year of the custody. After the rst year of arrest, the normal bail provisions of the
Criminal Procedure Code would apply.
Again the problem with POTA was that it was misused massively. Arrests were arbitrary
–politicians, people who were striking, people protesting against their houses being
demolished, etc. Even before that POTA was opposed by opposition parties so it could
not be passed through Rajya Sabha. It was one of the unique occasions when Parliament
called a Joint Parliamentary Session of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha – it was only then
that POTA could be passed. The Congress in 2004 (UPA) gave an assurance that it would
do away with POTA if they came to power. When they came to power, POTA was repealed
(Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act 2004) on 21 September 2004. On the same day
that they repealed POTA, they brought out an Amendment to the UAPA – Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004. The UAPA already existed in the law books
since 1967. But that law essentially dealt with banning certain organisations which spoke
against unity, integrity of India, and which talked about secession. It was not a law
dealing with terrorism. In the 2004 amendment to this law, and subsequent amendments
in 2008, 2013 and now in 2019 – basically the provisions concerning terrorism were
incorporated from POTA into UAPA. So while POTA is repealed, you have UAPA coming in
with similar provisions and minor changes here and there.
There are some aspects of UAPA that we must focus on: 'unlawful activity' and 'unlawful
associations.' Unlawful Associations are those which from time to time will be declared
as unlawful if that association is found to be acting against the unity and integrity of
India or secession. this declaration is made through an o cial government gazette
noti cation. Second is 'Terrorist Organisations' – those which are named in the schedule
to the Act itself. There are more than 40 organisations named in the schedule which are
classi ed as terrorist organisations. Repealing POTA did not make any difference to what
kind of act would now come into place.
I personally feel there are at least three aspects which are worse in UAPA than POTA.
First, review committees, which were mandated under POTA are completely done away
with under UAPA. Second, the one year limit on strict bail conditions after which normal
bail conditions would apply under POTA has been done away with in UAPA. This means
that for ever and after – till the trial is over, the strict bail conditions will apply. This
makes grant of bail very, very unlikely. The third aspect is with reference to the sunset
clauses in TADA and POTA and like preventive detention initially had. Just as the
temporary law of preventive detention got converted into a permanent law in 1980,
similarly, UAPA acquired the character of a permanent anti-terrorism law without any
sunset clause. The advantage of a sunset clause is that it has to be reviewed constantly,
it has to be placed before the Parliament, it has to be debated in Parliament. Here there is
no reason for any debate, no justi cation etc. UAPA is a much more oppressive law than
POTA or TADA ever were.
I will brie y speak about the ways in which UAPA has been used in the present times and
why it is absolutely essential that one doesn't call for dilution of UAPA -- one calls for
repeal of UAPA. There are at least three cases going on right now when UAPA has been
majorly used – Bhima Koregaon case which happened in Maharashtra but has acquired a
national avour where everybody who is arrested is charged with being a terrorist and put
behind bars whether that person has anything to do with terrorism, whether that person
has ever entered Bhima Koregaon, whether that person ever entered a forest is irrelevant.
You are charged and put behind bars; the second case is the Delhi Riots case where the
victims have now become the accused through the UAPA. This law has been used
against various people saying that actually those who are victims and those who called
for peaceful protests, those who always supported Gandhian ideals of peaceful
satyagraha and non-violence have been now charged with being terrorists and been put
behind bars -- and many more people are likely to be arrested. The third case is the
Hathras case where the girl was mercilessly raped and beaten and killed, her body burnt
overnight by a total collaboration between the police and the upper caste men.
Journalists who try to investigate what is happening are being charged under UAPA as
being terrorists, performing unlawful activities etc. There are various ways in which you
can crush or quieten dissent. One of the ways, as I said when I began, is by hollowing out
various institutions. It is not as if UAPA or TADA or preventive detention law was not
misused earlier -- they were misused massively. In fact many, many people would say
that the worst atrocities happened during the Emergency — 1975-77. But we must
remember two things. That Emergency was a phenomenon to protect an individual, or
one or two individuals. As soon as those people felt protected Emergency was lifted. It
was a temporary event. Once it was over, things started getting normalised.
Presently we are not dealing with a temporary event. We are dealing with the spread of
an ideology which seeks to establish permanence in our society; which seeks to

establish itself as the only ideology which will be acceptable in the society. In order to do
that it has to root out dissent. It has to root out any kind of objections to the way it
functions. And it will choose legal as well as extra-legal methods of doing so. Various
extra-legal methods can be used such as individual killings (Gauri Lankesh, Dabholkar
and various others) -- but individual killings only kill the individual, create some sort of a
chilling effect for the time being and people again start protesting. With these kind of
conspiracy cases which they are building up -- Bhima Koregaon, Delhi et., what they are
doing is, they may not be killing an individual but they are creating an atmosphere of fear
which will affect not one individual but a large number of people (like everywhere, 20
people arrested, 40 people arrested...) and it will affect them for a long period of time till
the trial ends… so another 8 or 10 or 15 years. Imagine the chilling effect of these kinds
of trials especially on people who are seen as leaders of the civil society.
They are no more interested in the foot soldiers. They are interested in attacking who
they consider are the leaders of the society and are using this law, UAPA to keep people
behind bars irrespective of whether conviction comes or not, for a long long period of
time. They have acquired a mastery over this law, UAPA – brand anybody as anti-national,
brand anybody as violent, brand anybody as urban naxal, put them behind bars. The
judiciary has been pathetically bad as far as responding to these kinds of cases is
concerned – whether it is Romila Thapar's case in Supreme Court or whether it is the
recent case called Watali'scase of the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court said that
at the time of granting bail, the court will not look at the admissibility of evidence which
the police produce. So the police produce any fabricated documents, and the courts are
not supposed to look at them till the trial is over.
The use of the law -- not its misuse -- is to keep people behind bars for years and years
together without there being any justi able cause. Therefore I feel that it is time that we
all demand that a law like UAPA be repealed altogether.
We don't need a law like this in order to ght terrorism. There are enough provisions
under the IPC -- murder, dacoity, hate speech, sedition (I don't agree with it, but it is there),
waging war against the government – all these offences are covered under IPC. We don't
need this separate law. We should ask for the repeal of this law because it is only needed
to crush dissent. Let me say at the end that we do miss Mr. Kannabiran at this time
because this is the time when I believe that his ideas, his strength as a lawyer and his
strength as a human rights activist is badly needed. Unfortunately, we don't have him
with us but we still have his ideals and his principles to go by. Let us try and go by that
and let us see how we can move forward. Thank you.
[Senior Advocate Mihir Desai practices civil and criminal law in Bombay High Court,
Mumbai and the Supreme Court of India. He is Vice President of Peoples' Union for Civil
Liberties. He is a human rights lawyer who has taken up cases of mass communal and
caste violence, state violence, free speech, the rights of journalists and political
dissenters and has been closely involved in fact nding missions and citizens' tribunals
on questions of human rights in India]
This is the third lecture of K G Kannabiran memorial lectures.
[The previous two lectures :
Lecture by Justice B Sudershan Reddy, former Supreme Court Judge -Death Of

Democratic Institutions: The Inevitable Logic of Neo-Liberal Political Economy &
Abandonment of Directive Principles of State Policy.
Second lecture by Advocate B Nalin Kumar -'A Lawyer With High Principles' : A Junior
Remembers His Senior KG Kannabiran]
Video of Mihir Desai's lecture :
TAGS PREVENTIVE DETENTION PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW UAPA
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT K G KANNABIRAN
loading....
+ VIEW MORE
SIMILAR POSTS
"Phishing – The Modern Day Selective Activism And Book Review – Ambedkar's
Techdemic" Public Faith In Regulators Preamble
4 April 2021 7:14 PM 4 April 2021 4:13 PM 3 April 2021 2:16 PM
Article 21 In Prison An Analysis Of Accessing Lt. Col. Nitisha vs Union of

High Courts During COVID India: The Supreme Court
Lockdown: March To August Recognises Indirect
2020 Discrimination
2 April 2021 9:29 AM 1 April 2021 7:19 PM 30 March 2021 7:39 PM
Article 21 In A Time Of Religious Beliefs; Closure Of

Genocide: The Rohingya Meat Shops And Article Supreme Court's Refusal To
Case Before The Supreme 19(1)(g) Of The Constitution Stay Electoral Bonds
Court Of India Undermines Transparency In

Electoral Process
29 March 2021 7:24 PM 28 March 2021 11:17 AM 27 March 2021 1:57 PM
Insolvency Law in Review – Right Of Residence Of Women In Constituent

February 2021 Daughter-In-Law In Wake Of Assembly : Wide Ranging
The New Judgment By The Interventions of Begum
Supreme Court Aizaz Rasul
24 March 2021 12:45 PM 23 March 2021 8:19 AM 21 March 2021 11:53 AM
+ MORE
WEBINARS
[LIVE NOW] Virtual Canteen On "Celebrating Women's Successes In Litigation" Organised By

Delhi HC Women Lawyers Forum
LAW FIRMS + MORE
Is It Alive Only On Paper - Special Task Force/Committee (POCSO) Of Delhi Police Constituted
As Per Alakh Alok Srivastava Judgement?
+ MORE
LATEST NEWS
1 Preventive Detention -MP High Court Directs Govt. To Issue Guidelines To Strictly
Adhere To The Provisions Of National Security Act
2 "Shocking That Girl Who Was Allegedly Sexually Assaulted & Ravaged Was Left On
A Railway Platform": Bombay HC Calls For Corrective Measures
3 Peon Served For 20 Yrs On Temporary Basis Despite Clear Vacancy- "It Amounts
To Employee's Exploitation": Orissa High Court
4 "There Are Many Sub-standard Law Colleges In The Country, Which is A Very
Worrying Trend. Judiciary is Attempting To Correct It"; Justice NV Ramana
"Attempt Made To Overawe Authorities": P&H High Court Imposes 1 Lakh Fine On
Woman Who Sought CBI Probe In Her 'Fake Rape' Case
6 "Phishing – The Modern Day Techdemic"
7 Candidate Defected To BJP- Bodoland People's Front Moves SC Seeking

Postponement Of Elections To Tamulpur Constituency In Assam to Substitute its
Candidate
8 Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [29th March to 4th April 2020]

लाइव लॉ िहं दी + MORE
गंभीर अपराध म संदेह के आधार पर बरी होना उ ीदवार को सावजिनक रोजगार के िलए यो नही ं बना
सकता: सु ीम कोट
सु ीम कोट वीकली राउं ड अप : जािनए सु ीम कोट म कैसा रहा िपछला स ाह
आरोप की गंभीरता ासंिगक कारकः सु ीम कोट ने लेडी डॉ र की ह ा के आरोपी की जमानत र की
जेल म भीड़भाड़: वा व म सीसीटीवी कैमरे कहां थािपत िकए गए ह? िसफ चार िदनों का सीसीटीवी फुटे ज
ही ों संरि त है ? : सु ीम कोट ने ितहाड़ जेल के अिधकारी और मं ालय को एिफडे िवट दायर करने का
िनदश िदया
सु ीम कोट म काले जादू , अंधिव ास को िनयंि त करने और बलपूवक धम प रवतन रोकने के िलए कानून
बनाने की मांग को लेकर यािचका दायर
INTERNATIONAL + MORE
1 Recording Sexual History Of Rape Victim By Carrying Out "Two- nger Test" Or
"Virginity Test" Unconstitutional: Pakistan Supreme Court
2 Uber Drivers Are 'Workers'; Not Independent Contractors : United Kingdom

Supreme Court
3 Surveillance Of Private Communications Limits Right To Privacy: South Africa

Constitutional Court Holds Its Surveillance Law Unconstitutional
4 Daniel Pearl Kidnap & Murder: Pakistan Supreme Court Acquits Accused; Orders
Their Release
ENVIRONMENT + MORE
1 NGT Directs Chief Secretary, Delhi To Take Decision At Higher Administrative Level
In Plea To Ensure Treated Water Supply In Public Parks
2 "All Isn't Well In Sundarbans": Calcutta High Court Directs Administration To Issue
Protective Orders Retraining All Illegal Activities In The Area
3 Death Due To Illegal Factory Fire In Delhi's Pratap Nagar: NGT Takes Suo Moto
Cognizance, Constitutes 5 Member Joint Committee
4 "Polluter Pays Principle": NGT Directs NTPC To Pay Compensation Of 57.96 Lakhs
For Damaging The Environment
JOB UPDATES
1. Legal O cer Vacancy At Madhya Pradesh Public Health Services Corporation Limited
2. Legal Professional Vacancy At HSCC (India) Limited
3. Manager (Legal) Vacancy At Footwear Design & Development Institute
4. Senior Manager (Human Resources & Legal) Vacancy At TISS
5. Empanelment Of Legal Advisor At Indian Institute Of Technology Kanpur
+ VIEW MORE
JUST ENTER YOUR EMAIL FOR THE

LIVELAW DAILY NEWS BRIEFING BY
EMAIL ALL THE DAY'S HEADLINES AND
HIGHLIGHTS FROM LIVELAW, DIRECT
TO YOU EVERY MORNING
NEWSLETTERS
DIRECTLY IN YOUR MAILBOX
Enter Your Email
Submit
TOP STORIES KNOW THE LAW
NEWS UPDATE LAW FIRMS
COLUMNS JOB UPDATES
INTERVIEWS BOOK REVIEWS
INTERNATIONAL EVENTS CORNER
RTI UPDATES COVER STORY
EDITOR'S PICK PLACEMENTS
LAW SCHOOL CORNER SCHOLARSHIPS
ARTICLES SEMINARS
CALL FOR PAPERS ENVIRONMENT
COMPETITIONS BOOK REVIEWS
INTERNSHIPS
© All Rights Reserved @LiveLaw
Powered By Hocalwire
Who We Are Careers Advertise With Us Contact Us Privacy Policy Terms And Conditions


Preventive Detention Laws Allow State To Carve Out Exception For Its Lawlessness: Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preventive Detention Laws Allow State To Carve Out Exception For Its Lawlessness: Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preventive Detention Laws Allow State To Carve Out Exception For Its Lawlessness: Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/5/2021 Preventive Detention Laws Allow State To Carve Out Exception For Its Lawlessness : Mihir Desai, Senior

Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate

Hi, kush kalra Logout

BOOKMARKS TOP STORIES NEWS UPDATES COLUMNS INTERVIEWS FOREIGN/INTERNATIONAL

Preventive Detention Laws Allow State To Carve

in all forms is crushed.

Also Read - 'Phishing – The Modern Day Techdemic'

I am extremely thankful to Kalpana and Vasanth for giving me this opportunity of

also. So the memories of Mr. Kannabiran are very, very fond.

Also Read - Selective Activism And Public Faith In Regulators

Also Read - Book Review – Ambedkar's Preamble

Also Read - Article 21 In Prison

Amendment permitting such enactments to be introduced. Obviously he is a major critic

Executive as well as the Legislature are required to be accountable to the people in

erosion of these institutions.

is as far as the Election Commission is concerned.

-- the National Judicial Appointments Commission for appointment of judges of the

things: if you look at educational institutions, a complete erosion of autonomy of

educational institutions -- violence, state violence being used within educational

be misused. And of course thereafter Gandhiji's satyagraha started, the non-cooperation

the Defence of India Act, 1939.

of the Constitution of India permits preventive detention but in limited circumstances. So

so MISA was repealed in 1978 (Act 27 of 1978).

preventive detention. It is no more subject to Parliamentary scrutiny every year or two

replaced by TADA in 1985.

Parliament which would then have to decide as to whether to continue or not.

allowed TADA to lapse.

Criminal Procedure Code would apply.

with similar provisions and minor changes here and there.

India or secession. this declaration is made through an o cial government gazette

kind of act would now come into place.

POTA or TADA ever were.

remember two things. That Emergency was a phenomenon to protect an individual, or

an ideology which seeks to establish permanence in our society; which seeks to

concerned – whether it is Romila Thapar's case in Supreme Court or whether it is the

not supposed to look at them till the trial is over.

all demand that a law like UAPA be repealed altogether.

and let us see how we can move forward. Thank you.

[The previous two lectures :

Lecture by Justice B Sudershan Reddy, former Supreme Court Judge -Death Of

Video of Mihir Desai's lecture :

TAGS PREVENTIVE DETENTION PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW UAPA

UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT K G KANNABIRAN

Article 21 In Prison An Analysis Of Accessing Lt. Col. Nitisha vs Union of

Article 21 In A Time Of Religious Beliefs; Closure Of

Court Of India Undermines Transparency In

Insolvency Law in Review – Right Of Residence Of Women In Constituent

[LIVE NOW] Virtual Canteen On "Celebrating Women's Successes In Litigation" Organised By

LAW FIRMS + MORE

6 "Phishing – The Modern Day Techdemic"

7 Candidate Defected To BJP- Bodoland People's Front Moves SC Seeking

8 Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [29th March to 4th April 2020]

सु ीम कोट वीकली राउं ड अप : जािनए सु ीम कोट म कैसा रहा िपछला स ाह

आरोप की गंभीरता ासंिगक कारकः सु ीम कोट ने लेडी डॉ र की ह ा के आरोपी की जमानत र की

2 Uber Drivers Are 'Workers'; Not Independent Contractors : United Kingdom

3 Surveillance Of Private Communications Limits Right To Privacy: South Africa

2. Legal Professional Vacancy At HSCC (India) Limited

3. Manager (Legal) Vacancy At Footwear Design & Development Institute

4. Senior Manager (Human Resources & Legal) Vacancy At TISS