Tamil Nadu govt using preventive detention casually, says Madras HC

CHENNAI: Coming down heavily on the State government yet again for invoking the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act (known in common parlance as Goondas Act), the Madras High Court faulted the authorities were using it casually and quashed the detention of a man who is accused of financial fraud.

The quashing and the scathing observations that the bench made came just days after pulling up the State for using the “draconian law” to detain controversial YouTuber Savukku Shankar.

AR: 'Savukku' Shankar detained under Goondas Act again

The same division bench comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam asked the State to seriously ponder over placing individuals under preventive detention, pointing out that the Supreme Court had made it clear that the unlawful detention of a person even for a day was illegal.

The petitioner, C Selvaraj, allegedly availed bank loans to the tune of Rs 3 crore and also ran up a bill of Rs 33 lakh on his credit card by opening several bank accounts using fake salary slips.

Hearing his petition against his detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1982, the bench said offences related to individuals cannot fall under the ambit of the Act, as his action had not caused any disturbance to the general public or breached public order.

Fraudulent bank transactions would not amount to disrupting the social harmony, it added, wondering how the State can slap Goondas Act against an individual for offences like financial frauds. The State needs to seriously think about invoking the provisions of Preventive Detention Act, the bench added.

Facing tough questions from the bench, additional public prosecutor E Raj Tilak submitted that Selvaraj was detained under Goondas Act so as to prevent him from involving such offences in future. But the court refused to accept the submission and came down against the State for the casual use of preventive detention against individuals.

Earlier, while quashing the detention of Shankar, the bench said in an open court that a democratic State using preventive detention would take the country back to the colonial era. It had also said that preventive detention laws could not be used to curb speeches where there is no disturbance to public order or security of the State.