A case of administrative negligence in Madhya Pradesh has left a small farming family financially devastated and emotionally scarred after a young man was wrongfully detained for more than a year under the National Security Act (NSA). The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while imposing a ₹2 lakh fine on Shahdol Collector Kedar Singh for his role in the unlawful detention, noted serious lapses in the administrative process that led to an innocent man losing more than twelve months of his life. Yet, legal experts and human rights advocates say the penalty does not come close to compensating for the suffering endured by the victim and his family.

A Year Lost to Wrongful Incarceration

Sushant Bais, a young graduate from Saman village in Shahdol district, was released from jail in September after spending one year and five days behind bars. He had been detained under the NSA—one of India’s strictest preventive detention laws—due to what officials now acknowledge was a clerical and procedural error.

Speaking to PTI, Sushant described the ordeal that has left him with deep psychological scars and little hope for stable employment. “There were a lot of problems. I didn’t have the money to fight the case. So I had to stay in jail for a year. My father somehow managed to arrange the money. We borrowed it from here and there, and some relatives helped,” he said.

The family, dependent entirely on three acres of farmland, was forced into debt of nearly ₹2 lakh—an enormous burden in rural Madhya Pradesh. His father’s modest earnings from agriculture were insufficient to support the legal fight, but the family persisted, hoping for justice.

A Family in Crisis

Sushant’s wrongful imprisonment did not affect him alone. Only months before his arrest, he had married. When he was detained in September, his wife was pregnant; she delivered their daughter in March while he remained in jail.

“My entire family faced problems, and my wife suffered mental agony. There were also social problems because the action taken against me was related to national security,” he explained. The stigma attached to NSA cases, often associated with terrorism or severe public disorder, left the family isolated in the community.

The emotional strain was compounded by financial pressure. His father sold assets, took informal loans, and appealed to relatives to fund the legal battle. Even after Sushant’s release, the debt remains, as do the psychological wounds.

Officials and Activists Call It Administrative Negligence

Former Madhya Pradesh Director General of Police S. C. Tripathi termed the case a clear example of “administrative negligence.” He noted that while the High Court had imposed a fine on the collector, the order alone could not compensate for the harm inflicted.

A former member of the Madhya Pradesh Human Rights Commission expressed similar concerns. “The victim has lost more than a year of his life. Two lakh rupees cannot compensate for that,” he said, urging the family to appeal to the State or National Human Rights Commission to seek meaningful compensation.

Human rights advocates point out that wrongful NSA detentions have long-lasting repercussions. Preventive detention under the NSA allows authorities to imprison individuals without trial for up to a year, often based on police reports that are not scrutinised by independent bodies. In this case, both the procedural error and the lack of verification proved catastrophic for the Bais family.

How the Wrongful Detention Happened

The sequence of errors began in September 2024. In his petition, Sushant’s father, Hiramani Bais, stated that the Shahdol Superintendent of Police had sent a report to the collector recommending NSA action against one Neeraj Kant Dwivedi. However, the collector issued the NSA order against Sushant instead.

The petition argued that the criminal case forming the basis for the NSA recommendation had already been resolved through a Lok Adalat settlement, meaning there was no ground for preventive detention. Despite this, the NSA order was approved and enforced.

During court proceedings, Collector Kedar Singh admitted that the NSA order had mistakenly included Sushant’s name instead of Dwivedi’s. His lawyer argued that cases involving Neeraj and Sushant had been heard together, which may have caused the “factual error.” The court, however, rejected this as insufficient justification for a mistake with such severe consequences.

An affidavit submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary revealed that the NSA order was forwarded to the state government for approval with the incorrect name, attributed to a typing error. A notice was later issued to the clerk responsible, seeking an explanation.

High Court’s Strong Response

The Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed serious concern over the cavalier handling of a law as stringent as the NSA. In its order, the court issued a contempt notice to Collector Singh, directing him to pay the ₹2 lakh fine from his personal funds. The amount is to be deposited directly into Sushant’s account.

The court further ordered the collector to appear in person at the next hearing, signalling that the judiciary intends to pursue accountability beyond monetary penalties. The decision underscores the need for administrative diligence when invoking laws that restrict fundamental rights.

A Larger Pattern of Preventive Detention Misuse

Legal experts say the case fits into a broader pattern where preventive detention laws are invoked without adequate scrutiny. The NSA, designed for situations involving national security, public order, or essential services, has often been criticised for being misapplied in cases that do not meet its stringent criteria.

Procedural lapses—such as failure to verify facts, lack of independent witnesses, or misidentification—have repeatedly led to innocent individuals being detained.

In Sushant’s case, the High Court noted that the wrongful detention could have been avoided if basic verification had been carried out before the order was issued.

What Lies Ahead for the Family

Despite the court’s intervention, the road to recovery remains long. Sushant, a graduate with hopes of stable employment, finds himself haunted by the label of an NSA detainee. “Now, who will give me a job?” he asked. His plans have shifted from pursuing career opportunities to helping his father on their small farm as they struggle to repay debt and rebuild their lives.

Human rights experts insist that the family must seek further compensation and accountability, noting that the loss of liberty, income, dignity, and family stability cannot be measured simply in monetary terms.

The case has reignited debate over the need for stringent checks before preventive detention orders are issued, ensuring that administrative errors do not destroy innocent lives.

---