I. Introduction

The Supreme Court, in the case of Jaseela Shaji vs Union of India, 2024, recently introduced new standards for preventive detention, altering the provisions under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974. This insightful move, upheld by the Kerala high court, majorly contributes to the safeguarding of individual liberties.

 

II. Preventive Detention: Setting New Norms 

What's new in the recent ruling of the Jaseela Shaji vs Union of India case? The supreme court delineated several new standards for preventive detention.

- Enforcement of Fair and Effective Opportunity: The detaining authority shall deliver copies of all crucial documents to the detainee, constituting the base for detention.

- Acknowledging Personal Liberty as a Constitutional Right: Avowing personal liberty as a vital constitutional right, the Supreme Court determined that any adequacy in providing the relevant documents and information can lead to the violation of the fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

- Upholding Non-arbitrary Actions: Authorities must ensure non-arbitrary actions by respecting detainees' rights at all stages. 

- Leveraging Technology for Faster communication: Authorities are urged to employ available technology for accelerated and timely communication related to detention, thus reducing unnecessary delays.

 

III. An Overview of Protection Against Arrest and Detention in India

The authority for protection against arrest and detention is vested in Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. 

- Understanding Punitive and Preventive Detention: Punitive detention aims to punish an individual post-trial and conviction in court, while preventive detention aims to prevent potential future offences without trial or conviction.

- Dissecting Article 22: This Article is divided into two parts dealing with rights under ordinary laws and protections under preventive detention laws.

 

IV. The Connection Between Detention Laws and Article 22

At both the national and state level, legislative bodies have powers vested upon them regarding preventive detention.

- Parliament's Power: Article 22 empowers the Parliament to prescribe the conditions for detention without obtaining the advisory board's opinion and the maximum period for which a person can be detained.

- Legislative Adaptations over Time: The 44th Amendment Act, 1978 reduced the period of detention without obtaining the opinion of an advisory board from three to two months. 

- Preventive Detention Laws in India: Over the years, various preventive detention laws have been enacted to maintain national safety, public order and prevent crimes.

 

V. Critique of Preventive Detention in India 

Critics argue that no other democratic country has preventive detention as an integral part of its constitution like India. This law, while co-existing with fundamental rights, has often been misused for political gains and to suppress free speech.

 

VI. Landmark Judicial Cases Involving Preventive Detention

Over the years, numerous cases regarding preventive detention have come forward, each contributing towards the evolution of its laws.

- Overview of Important Cases: Few of the landmark cases that contributed to shaping the preventive detention laws in India include Shibban Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1954, Khudiram v. State of West Bengal, 1975, Nand Lal Bajaj v. The State of Punjab and Anr, 1981, Rekha v. State Of Tamil Nadu, 2011, Mariappan vs the District Collector And Others, 2014, Prem Narayan v. Union of India, 2019, Abhayraj Gupta v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly, 2021.

 

VII. Conclusion

While preventive detention is a powerful instrument in maintaining national security and order, it's essential to ensure its use judiciously to safeguard individual rights and liberties. Changes in its laws must continuously evolve, catering to modern human rights standards, and judicial bodies need to maintain a balance, ensuring the law's legitimate use.