"Preventive detention is a necessary evil in a constitutional democracy." Critically examine this in light of how courts have treated State 'Goondas Acts'.

Preventive detention means holding a person without trial to stop a feared future act. India writes this power into the Constitution itself, in Article 22(3)–(7) [1]. States use it through laws such as Tamil Nadu's 1982 "Goondas Act" [2]. In September 2026 the Madras High Court quashed B.T. Arasakumar's detention under that Act [2]. The case shows that the power may be necessary, but it is often abused.

Why it is "necessary"

• Constitutional basis: Entry 3 of List III lets States make detention laws to maintain public order [1].
• Early action: habitual offenders can intimidate witnesses and repeat offences long before a slow trial ends.
• Built-in safeguards: the detainee must be told the grounds and given the earliest opportunity to make a representation (Art. 22(5)). Detention beyond three months needs Advisory Board approval (Art. 22(4)) [1]. The National Security Act adds fixed timelines and a 12-month maximum [3].

Why it is an "evil": how courts have treated Goondas Acts

• Law and order passed off as public order: in Ameena Begum (2023), the Supreme Court quashed a Telangana order that had labelled a person accused of cheating and extortion a "goonda" [4]. It applied the Ram Manohar Lohia test: does the act disturb the life of the whole community, or does it harm only particular individuals? [4]
• A shortcut around trial: Arasakumar is accused of collecting over ₹100 crore from private schools. That is a white-collar allegation, yet he was detained under the Goondas Act. His petition argued that his acts posed no threat to public order [2].
• Procedural failure: the High Court quashed the order because the government was slow to consider his representation. By then he had spent 79 days (11 July–28 September) in detention the court later set aside [2].
• No accountability: the detainee is released, but the officials responsible for the delay face no consequence.
• Global standard: the UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 35 warns that security detention carries a severe risk of being arbitrary. It says such detention should not replace the ordinary criminal process [5].

Taken together, the judgments show that courts tolerate preventive detention as an exception to liberty and strike it down whenever procedure or purpose fails. To keep the power "necessary" and limit the "evil", States should:

• set fixed deadlines for deciding representations;
• require every order to state in writing why ordinary criminal law is not enough;
• pursue fraud cases through investigation and trial.

These steps would respect Article 21's promise that liberty can be taken away only through fair procedure.