The Madras High Court has issued a stern warning to the Tamil Nadu government over its indiscriminate use of preventive detention laws, emphasizing that such powers, described by the court as “draconian,” must not be misused to silence dissenting voices or bypass ordinary criminal procedures. The judgment, delivered on December 30, 2025, underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting personal liberty and ensuring that preventive detention, a measure of last resort, is not applied arbitrarily or mechanically.

The case that brought this issue to the fore involved Varaki, a YouTube investigative journalist who had been detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, commonly known as the Goondas Act. The journalist was classified as a “sexual offender” and held in preventive detention, a move challenged in the high court by Varaki’s legal team. A bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal granted interim bail for a period of three months, citing the absence of sufficient grounds to justify detention under the Goondas Act.

In its order, the court highlighted a “growing tendency” among state authorities to invoke preventive detention powers mechanically, often without establishing a direct threat to public order. The judges expressed concern that if such practices continued unchecked, they could have “disastrous consequences,” eroding constitutional protections and undermining trust in law enforcement. The court stressed that personal liberty remains the State’s foremost constitutional obligation and directed the Home Secretary to take departmental action against officials who invoke the Goondas Act for extraneous reasons. If found culpable, these authorities could face disciplinary proceedings and prosecution under relevant service rules.

Preventive detention laws grant the executive branch the authority to incarcerate individuals without trial for specified periods, typically on grounds related to public order or security. However, the high court emphasized that such powers are inherently draconian and must be exercised with caution. The judges warned that any “callousness, motive, extraneous consideration, or intent to settle political scores or silence dissenting voices” cannot form the basis for detention. They made it clear that routine approval of detention orders by state authorities without due scrutiny violates fundamental rights and constitutional safeguards.

A significant focus of the judgment was the interpretation of “public order,” a critical requirement for invoking preventive detention. Drawing upon settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court clarified that not every breach of law and order constitutes a threat to public order. Incidents affecting only private individuals, without broader societal implications, cannot justify detention. In Varaki’s case, the court noted that the underlying incident arose from a landlord–tenant dispute. Such matters could have been adequately addressed through civil remedies or ordinary criminal proceedings, rather than resorting to preventive detention. The bench emphasized that “mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not enough,” and authorities must clearly demonstrate how the alleged conduct poses a threat to the community at large.

The court also critiqued procedural delays that undermine the efficacy of habeas corpus petitions, the constitutional remedy against illegal detention. In Tamil Nadu, repeated adjournments by the State to file counter-affidavits often result in petitions being heard only near the expiry of detention periods. The judges observed that this practice renders constitutional safeguards “frustrated and meaningless,” allowing prolonged incarceration without judicial oversight. The order highlighted that such delays are systemic, with hundreds of preventive detention cases creating significant backlogs in the courts. Detaining authorities, aware of these delays, often rely on the likelihood that individuals will remain in custody regardless of judicial review.

Another critical aspect addressed by the high court was the misuse of preventive detention against journalists, social media commentators, and other individuals exercising freedom of expression. The court noted that filing multiple criminal cases and invoking the Goondas Act against such persons constitutes a direct infringement of the fundamental right to free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The judgment warned that any use of preventive detention to curb dissent, particularly in the context of media or public commentary, is unconstitutional and cannot be tolerated.

The court’s order goes beyond Varaki’s case to underscore broader implications for governance and civil liberties. By highlighting the mechanical invocation of preventive detention laws, it calls attention to a pattern of administrative overreach, where authorities rely on extraordinary powers without proper justification. The bench directed the state government to ensure that detention orders are examined critically before approval, and that any misuse is met with strict accountability. The ruling explicitly cautioned that preventive detention should not become a tool for suppressing political dissent, social commentary, or legitimate public criticism.

Legal experts have noted that the judgment reinforces the principle that personal liberty is a cornerstone of constitutional democracy. Preventive detention, while available as a tool to maintain public order, is subject to judicial scrutiny precisely because of its potential for abuse. The Madras High Court’s observations reaffirm the need for restraint, accountability, and adherence to due process when invoking such powers. The order serves as a reminder that no individual, regardless of public perception or administrative convenience, can be deprived of liberty arbitrarily.

The ruling also calls for structural reforms in handling preventive detention cases, including timely hearings, proper vetting of detention orders, and training for law enforcement officials to avoid mechanical or unjustified applications of the law. By mandating departmental action against erring officials, the court aims to establish accountability and ensure that constitutional safeguards are respected in practice, not just on paper.

In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s order is a significant assertion of civil liberties and a rebuke to administrative practices that compromise the fundamental rights of citizens. It emphasizes that preventive detention laws, designed to protect public order, cannot be weaponized to silence dissent, target journalists, or punish individuals for reasons unrelated to genuine threats to society. By granting interim bail to Varaki and setting a precedent for stricter scrutiny of detention orders, the court has reinforced the principle that personal liberty is non-negotiable and must remain at the forefront of governance. The judgment serves as both a warning to authorities and a reassurance to the public that constitutional rights, particularly freedom from arbitrary detention, will be upheld even against systemic misuse of draconian laws.

---