Procedural safeguards under Article 22 are the only shield against executive excess in preventive detention. Discuss with recent judicial pronouncements.

Article 22(4)–(7) allows preventive detention but attaches conditions to it. Any detention beyond three months needs an Advisory Board opinion. Article 22(5) guarantees that the detainee is told the grounds and gets the earliest opportunity to make a representation. These safeguards are the first line of defence. Recent rulings show they are not the only one.

Article 22 safeguards as the frontline shield

• Prompt decision on representation: in September 2026 the Madras High Court quashed B.T. Arasakumar's Goondas Act detention because the State was slow to consider his representation [1].
• Supply of documents: in Jaseela Shaji (2024), the Supreme Court quashed a COFEPOSA detention. The authorities had not supplied the documents they relied on, and they took nine months to deal with the representation [2].
• Advisory Board: this provides independent review of any detention longer than three months.

Shields beyond Article 22

• Substantive judicial review: through habeas corpus under Articles 32/226, courts test whether the acts threatened "public order" or only "law and order". In Ameena Begum (2023), the Supreme Court quashed a Telangana detention on this test. It also criticised the routine use of detention orders [3].
• Statutory limits: the National Security Act, 1980 requires reference to an Advisory Board within three weeks and caps detention at 12 months [4].
• International norms: UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 35 says security detention must not replace the ordinary criminal process [5].

Why procedure alone is insufficient

• Remedy comes after the harm: Arasakumar spent 79 days under an order the court later set aside [1]. Release brings no automatic compensation.
• Narrow rulings: courts often quash on delay alone. Whether an alleged fraud justified detention at all is left undecided [1].
• Broad statutes: Tamil Nadu's 1982 Act covers five categories of offenders, so police can stretch it to white-collar allegations [1].
• Subjective satisfaction: an order needs no trial or tested evidence at the start.

Article 22 sets the minimum. Real protection comes from procedural safeguards, substantive judicial scrutiny and statutory limits working together. Three reforms would strengthen this:

• fixed deadlines for deciding representations;
• a written record, in each order, of why ordinary criminal law is not enough;
• compensation for unlawful detention.

These steps would keep preventive detention a true exception, in line with Article 21 and SDG 16.3 on the rule of law.