Examine the use of preventive detention as a tool of crowd management in India. Suggest safeguards to prevent its misuse against peaceful dissent.

Preventive detention means holding a person to stop a possible future act, not to punish a past crime. Article 22(3)–(7) allows it only as an exception [3]. For crowds, police mostly use Section 170 BNSS (formerly Section 151 CrPC), which permits detention of up to 24 hours to prevent a cognizable offence [2]. In practice, this exception is turning into a routine way to control protests.

Why the State uses it

• Pre-empting violence: police invoke public order (Art. 19(3)) to hold likely participants before large gatherings in sensitive areas.
• Low scrutiny: people are released within the 24-hour cap [2], so a magistrate rarely tests the grounds.
• Judicial room to regulate: the Supreme Court allowed control of time, place and manner (MKSS, 2018) [4]. It also ruled out indefinite occupation of roads (Amit Sahni, 2020) [6].

Where it goes wrong

• Regulation becomes prohibition: MKSS rejected a complete ban on protests [4]. Rounding people up in advance stops a protest before it begins.
• Arbitrariness: the UN Human Rights Committee calls indiscriminate mass arrest "arbitrary and thus unlawful". It says detention may be used only where there is proof of intent to commit or incite violence [1].
• Punishment without trial: it has a chilling effect on future dissent. Detaining journalists and lawyers also removes witnesses and legal help.
• No accountability: officers serving without identification badges cannot be named in complaints. Many states still lack working Police Complaints Authorities, despite Prakash Singh (2006) [5].

Safeguards

• Individual, written reasons backed by specific evidence of intent. Detention should never be by group or by organisation [1].
• Least restrictive option first: move or reschedule a protest before banning it [1].
• Early written orders, so organisers can get a same-day court hearing [1].
• Mandatory, visible name badges for every officer on protest duty [1].
• Independent Police Complaints Authorities with public reports on every use of force [5][1].
• Magistrate review of every mass detention, applying the spirit of Art. 22(5) on giving grounds [3].

Preventive detention can help keep public order, but only as a narrow and rare measure. Legal safeguards, police accountability and quick court remedies can protect the "reasonable" test in Article 19(3). They also uphold the constitutional promise of dissent and SDG 16 (accountable institutions).