Human Rights and Preventive Detention: Laws & Challenges Author : Ashish Kumar Singh Co- Author Akanksha Singh | Volume II Issue V |

ABSTRACT

Article 22 of The Constitution of India makes the least procedural necessities which must be included in any law instituted by lawmaking body in agreement of which an individual is denied of his life and individual freedom. Preventive Detention is essentially, an activity taken prior to prevent the possible commitment of the crime. Preventive Detention in this way is an activity taken on intuition that some wrong can be committed by the individual. Article 22(1) and (2) are additionally called Rights of a captured individual. India has a long history of “Preventive Detention”. India is one of only a handful barely any nations on the planet, whose Constitution takes into consideration preventive detention during peacetime. In a nation like India where a ton of disruptive exercises are being completed by our own citizens, the way of thinking of the Article 22 stays substantial even today taking to the conditions predominant in the nation at the hour of freedom.

1. INTRODUCTION: Every single person brought into the world autonomous, free and equivalent in respect and rights. They are invested with reason and inner voice and should act in like manner, living in an optimistic mood of affection and fraternity.

Human rights are rights intrinsic to every single person, insignificant to our nationality, spot of home, sex, national or ethnic starting point, shading, religion, language, or some other status. We are for the most part similarly qualified for our human rights without separation as these rights are fundamental to us since we are human. These rights are totally interrelated, reliant and indissoluble.

In our world prisons are still laboratories of torture, warehouses in which human commodities are inhumanly kept and where spectrums of impatient range from block juveniles to heroic protestor.

Convicts are not by mere reason of the conviction clear of all the fundamental rights which they otherwise possess.

The word ‘prisoner’ means any person who is kept under custody in jail or prison because he/she committed an act prohibited by law of the land. A prisoner also known as an inmate is anyone who, against their will, is deprived of liberty. This liberty can be deprived by forceful restrain or confinement.

The Indian socio-legal depends on peacefulness, common regard and human respect of the person. By carrying out a wrongdoing, an individual doesn’t change from being human and still is furnish with all the angles which request him to be treated with human intergrity and regard that a person deserves.

Human rights are required in light of the explanation of human life. Being in civilized society sorted out with law and a framework all things considered, it is fundamental to guarantee for each citizen a sensibly noble life. Regardless of whether the individual is kept or detained in view of his wrong, he is qualified for their privileges unaffected by the discipline for wrongs, basically provided that an individual under trial or a convict, his privileges can’t be clear.

“No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment”[1]

2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS (STATEMENT OF PROBLEM):
3. Is the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 able to deal with the issues of Preventive Detention?
4. Whether preventive detention is a permissible deprivation of liberty depends on whether it falls within the prohibition on arbitrary arrest and detention.
5. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this research paper is to show “how the rights violated through preventive detention.”
6. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS: The Preventive Detention laws will create more controversies instead of solving present issues.
7. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: This research paper is based on the doctrinal method in which data is collected from the secondary resources. In the secondary resource some books, e-books, websites etc. have been referred. After collecting data from various resources the data is compiled in such a manner that it will fulfill the objective of my research paper.
8. LITERATURE RIVIEW:

The law identifying with preventive detention in India has never encountered a going great. It was constantly obfuscated under the climate of doubt and question and produced heat both inside and outside Parliament. The appointed authorities and judges regarded it as a Draconian law\ dark Jaw\ rebellious law\ a dark spot on the Indian Constitution, etc. Considering the hardened opposition to the preventive confinement gauges, this field pulled in researchers to concentrate over the situation of the Indian preventive detention law.

India turned out to be free in 1947 and the Constitution was embraced in 1950. It is exceptional that the composers of the Indian Constitution, who endured most on account of the Preventive Detention Laws, didn’t spare a moment to give Constitutional sacredness to the Preventive Detention Laws and that too in the Fundamental Rights section of the Constitution. A few pieces of Article 22 are not Fundamental Rights but rather are Fundamental Dangers to the residents of India for whom and supposedly by whom the Constitution was encircled, to direct in another general public, with opportunity of articulation and opportunity of affiliation accessible to all. In 1950 itself, a Prevention Detention Act was steered by Sardar Patel, who said that he had a few ‘”restless evenings'” before he could conclude that it was important to present such a Bill. Furthermore, in 1950, under this Act, common disturbers of order and peace were not arrested, yet a political pioneer of significance A.K. Gopalan was arrested. Indeed, even from that underlying activity, it was obvious that these Acts were intended to check political vary, and that heritage has been and is being followed.

7. PREVENTIVE DETENTION:

The general importance of preventive detention is “the imprisonment of an individual with the point of keeping them from committing further offenses or of maintaining public order”.

Preventive Detention in the Constitution of India:

Preventive Detention is the most debatable part of the scheme of fundamental rights in the Indian constitutions. Article 22 (3) of the Indian constitution gives that, if an individual is arrested or confined under a law accommodating preventive detention, at that point the assurance against capture and detainment under Article 22 (1) and 22 (2) will not be accessible.

Preventive detention can anyway be made uniquely on four grounds. The grounds for Preventive detention are :

• Security of state.
• Maintenance of public order.
• Maintenance of supplies and essential services and defense.
• Foreign affairs or security of India.[2]

An individual may be kept without trial just on any or a bit of the above grounds. A detainee under preventive detention can have no benefit of individual freedom guaranteed by Article 19 or Article 21.

To prevent negligent utilization of Preventive Detention, certain protections are given in the constitution:

• Firstly, an individual might be taken to preventive authority just for 3 months at the primary occasion. On the off chance that the time of confinement is reached out past 3 months, the case must be referred to an Advisory Board comprising of people with qualification for appointment as judges of High Courts. It is comprehended, that the time of detainment might be stretched out past 3 months, only on approval by the Advisory Board.
• Secondly, the prisoner is qualified for know the grounds of his detainment. The state anyway may decline to unveil the grounds of detainment in the event that it is in the public interest. Needless to say, this power conferred on the state leaves scope for arbitrary action on the part of the authorities.
• Thirdly, the keeping specialists must give the prisoner most punctual open doors for making portrayal against the detainment. These protections are intended to limit the abuse of preventive confinement. It is a result of these protections that preventive confinement, essentially a refusal of freedom, finds a spot on the section on major rights. These shields are not accessible to foe outsiders.

8. PREVENTIVE DETENTION IN INDIA:
9. GENERAL HISTORY:[3] India has a long history of “Preventive Detention”. India is one of only a handful not many nations on the planet whose Constitution takes into account preventive detention during peacetime also. The opponents to this law say that these provisions are without any safeguards that elsewhere are understood to be basic requirements for protecting fundamental human rights.

For instance, the European Court of Human Rights has since quite a while ago held that preventive detention is unlawful under the European Convention on Human Rights regardless of the safeguards embodied in the law.

South Asia Human Rights Documentation Center (SAHRDC), prescribed in its accommodation to the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) in August 2000, to evacuate the arrangements of the Constitution of India that explicitly grant preventive detention.

The following are some historical landmarks related to Preventive Detention in India.

• In India the historical backdrop of preventive detention goes back to the beginning of the British guideline when under the Bengal Regulation—III of 1818 (the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation) the legislature was enabled to keep anyone on minor doubt.

• Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Defense of India Act 1939 allowed the detention of a person if it was “satisfied with respect to that particular person that such detention was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial” to the defense and safety of the country.
• Post Independence, The first Preventive Detention Act was passed in 1950. The validity of this act was challenged in the Supreme Court in the Gopalan v/s State of Madras Court. The Supreme Court held that this act constitutionally valid except some provisions. This act expired in 1969, and before it expired, it was amended for 7 times, each expansion was to make it valid for 3 more years and this it was extended till 31 December 1969.
• In 1971, the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) was passed. MISA was basically a modified version of the PDA Act. It was abolished in 1978.
• Another law, Conservation of Foreign exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) was enacted in 1974 and it continued.
• In the heat of the terrorism in Punjab the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act or infamous TADA was enacted in 1985. It was renewed in 1989, 1991 and 1993 and lapsed in 1995 due to increasing unpopularity due to widespread allegations of abuse. The main abuse was that a confession before a police officer, even though being given under torture, was admissible as evidence in court.
• Another similar act Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) of 2001 came into force.
• Both the TADA & POTO were later succeeded by another controversial Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (POTA) during 2002-04. This act was supported by the NDA Government but later was scrapped by the UPA government.
• After the Bombay attacks of November 26, 2008 parliament enacted another anti terror law known as Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

1. RIGHTS OF AN ARRESTED PERSON (Article 22(1) and 22(2))[4]:

• An individual can’t be arrested and kept without being informed why he is being captured.
• An individual who is arrested can’t be dismissed to be guarded by a legal practitioner of his choice. This implies the arrested individual has option to choose a legal practitioner to guard himself/herself.
• Every individual who has been arrested should be produced before the magistrate within 24 hours.
• The custody of the detained individual can’t be past the recommended period by the authority of magistrate.

The Article 22(1) and 22(2) make the above provisions. However, Article 22(3) says that the above safeguards are not available to the following:

• If the individual is at the time being an enemy alien.
• If the individual is arrested under certain law made with the end goal of “Preventive Detention.” The primary condition above is defended, on the grounds that when India is in war, the citizen of the enemy nation might be captured. But the second clause was not easy to justify by the constituent assembly. This was one of the few provisions which resulted in wild and bitter discussions.

1. PREVENTIVE DETENTION AS “EVIL” OF ARTCLE 22:

• Constitution of India has a few flaws and Article 22 is the best imperfection in that.
• Under Article 22, preventive detention might be executed whenever and the constitution explicitly permits a person to be kept – without charge or trail so it is a ruinous hit to individual freedoms of the citizen of the nation.
• It prevent the Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which permits that rights can only be limited “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation” because it allows detention in peacetime as well.
• It does not provide any procedural protections such as to reduce detainees’ helplessness to torture and discriminatory treatment; and to prevent officials’ misusing preventive detention for disruptive activities.
• The significant stretch of confining (3 months) represents a danger of torment.
• Constitution of India permits the legislature to pass preventive detention laws against its own citizen for the sake of national security and “maintenance of public order” according to Entry 9 of List I and Entry 3 of List III of the Constitution, this is quite unimaginable.
• In the absence of proper safeguards, preventive detention has been misused, particularly against the Dalits and the minorities sections in the society.
• The Power of states to form similar legislations has been misused.
• Before a preventive detention case is brought before the High Court, a three member Advisory Board headed by a sitting High Court Judge is constituted by the government to examine whether the detention is justified or not. But, the proceedings of the Board are confidential except for that part of the report which expresses the opinion of the Board.

1. OPPONENT’S VIEW TO PREVETIVE DETENTION:

• The protected way of thinking of individual freedom is a marvelous view, the conservation of freedom for reasons of State’s security; open request, hampering of national financial control, and so forth are figure as a fundamental malice to be regulated under severe constitutional limitations.
• India is an enormous nation and numerous rebel propensities against the national security and honesty existed and existing and an exacting law is required to counter the troublesome exercises.
• The number of people detained in these demonstrations is definitely not an exceptionally huge and due consideration is made before preventive detention.
• Having such kind of acts has a restraining influence on the anti-social and disruptive elements.
• The state should have very effective powers to deal with the acts in which the citizens involve in unfriendly/ aggressive activities, surveillance, coercion, terrorism, etc.
• The citizens of India have enjoyed the personal liberty for a long period since independence except two years of emergency.
• Such acts are required to deal with the antisocial elements such as terrorist attacks on innocent people which target lot of lives.

9. PREVENTIVE DETENTION IN UNITED  STATES:

GENERAL  HISTORY:

Preventive detention is not prohibited by U.S. law or particularly disapproved of in custom or practice. The conditions where it emerges are not isolated exemptions to a solid guideline against it; rather, they are relatively frequent. The central government and each of the 50 states together have a wide scope of statutory preventive confinement systems that are oftentimes utilized, a large number of which incite minimal social or lawful contention.

The various rules and systems approving the preventive detention of people not sentenced for a wrongdoing to forestall hurts brought about by that individual range generally in reason and topic:

• Wartime detention powers cover not only prisoners of war and unlawful enemy warriors but also the nationals of countries against which the United States winds up in a condition of armed conflict.
• The Constitution’s Suspension Clause explicitly contemplates that Congress may in emergencies suspend ordinary protected assumptions constraining confinement a force which has been summoned a few times in American history.
• Detention specialists auxiliary to the criminal justice framework incorporate both pre-trial detainment and the confinement of material witnesses not even facing criminal charges.
• The immigration law allows the detention of aliens confronting expelling and “showing up outsiders” denied passage to the United States.
• State and federal laws grant the detention of the truly intellectually sick, when they represent a risk to themselves or to people in general everywhere, just as the confinement of sex guilty parties much after they have finished their criminal sentences.
• State and federal statutes provide broad authority to quarantine people who have communicable diseases.
• States and localities have an assortment of protective custody powers, allowing the noncriminal confinement frequently for their own insurance of, among others, the intoxicated, alcoholics, drug addicts, the homeless, and pregnant medication clients.

The most ideal approach to comprehend preventive detainment under American law and practice, we submit, can’t some wide standard restricts it. It is, somewhat, that American law shuns it aside from where governing bodies and courts consider it important to forestall grave open damages.[5]

10. PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW IN INDIA: A CASE STUDY

The Constitution of India enables the Parliament to institute laws accommodating preventive detention for reasons associated with, “the security of a State, support of provisions, maintenance of public order and administrations basic to the citizens.” The Constitution likewise gives that these laws need not agree to major procedural rights ensures.’ “Preventive detention,” as comprehended in such laws, includes detention without criminal trial. That is, no criminal offense is proven, nor any charge formulated. Different from common criminal methodology, preventive detention laws set up “extraordinary forces” taking into consideration the detention of people without trial on the doubt that the prisoner comprises a danger to “public order” or “national security.

1. CONSTITUTIONALIZING PRVENTIVE DETENTION LAWS IN POST COLONIAL INDIA:

Preventive confinement laws have a long and politically-charged history in South Asia. In reality, preventive detainment was a typical element of the pilgrim legitimate framework in India. In the nineteenth century, a thick system of guidelines accommodated confinement and arrest without trail in specific cases, and prisoners were denied the option to appeal to in courts for writs of habeas corpus.

“During both World War I and World War II, ‘Britain sanctioned crisis enactment accommodating preventive detention.’ The Defense of the Realm Act and the Emergency Powers (Defense) Act approved the legislature to keep any person without preliminary in light of a legitimate concern for open wellbeing and security. These demonstrations terminated toward the finish of the individual wars. In India, the Defense of India Act accommodated comparable measures to make sure about the security and wellbeing of British India. Despite the fact that this Act lapsed at the end of World War I, it was before long supplanted by peacetime preventive detainment laws, for example, the Rowlatt Act and the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance. The Defense of India Act and the Defense of India Rules were sanctioned after World War II. These arrangements approved the administration to confine any individual idea to be a danger to open request, national security, or the upkeep of provisions and administrations basic to the community.

The postcolonial Constitution of India was endorsed by the Constituent Assembly in 1949.”India’s new constitution expressly vested the state and government councils with the ability to sanction laws accommodating preventive detention. In particular, the Parliament and state governing bodies could order laws accommodating preventive detention for reasons associated with Defense, Foreign Affairs, or the Security of India. Preventive detention laws are, in any case, subject to the limitations outlined in Article 22 of the Chapter on Fundamental Rights. Clauses (3) to (7) of Article 22 detail the procedural protections required for any preventive detention law to be naturally legitimate.

Article 22 gives that no preventive detention law will approve the confinement of an individual for a period longer than a quarter of a year without the approval of an Advisory Board. A special tribunal established explicitly for this reason. These Advisory Boards are to comprise of people who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court.

Clause (5) of Article 22 requires the confining power to convey to the prisoner the grounds whereupon the confinement request is based “when can be,” and to manage the cost of the prisoner a chance to make a representation against the request. These procedural shields are qualified in that the keeping authority may retain any data the exposure of which is believed to be against the public interest.

Parliament may by law recommend the “class or classes of cases” in which an individual could be kept for a period longer than a quarter of a year without the endorsement of the Advisory Board. The Constitution likewise approves Parliament to endorse the technique to be trailed by the Advisory Board procedures.

Even though Article 22 (3) to (7) determines the base procedural protections for all preventive detainment laws, these arrangements are best perused as limitations on principal opportunities. Clause (3) of Article 22 expresses that the creating assurances agreed by Clauses (1) and (2) of a similar Article don’t stretch out to any individual captured or confined under any law accommodating preventive detention.” Under 22 (1), all people captured reserve the privilege to consult, and be guarded by, a legal practitioner of their decision. As per Article 22 (2), every such individual will be delivered before the closest magistrate within twenty-four hours of arrest and detention will not stretch out past this period without the endorsement of a magistrate. As such, the denial of the securities managed under Article 22 (1) and (2) to people confined under preventive detainment laws comprises a critical takeoff from the Constitution’s procedural rights domain.

1. THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT AND ITS RAMIFICATION:

Pursuant to this constitutional authorization, India’s provisional Parliament enacted the Preventive Detention Act (PDA) in 1950. The PDA empowered the government to detain persons without charge or trial in the name of public safety and security.  In the first case brought before the Supreme Court of India A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) the Court upheld the constitutionality of the PDA. Patanjali Shatri, J. said: “This Sinister looking law, so strangely out of place in a democratic constitution, which invests personal liberty with the sacrosanctity of a FR, and so incompatible with the promises of its preamble, is doubtless designed to prevent the abuse of freedom by anti-social and subversive elements which might imperil the national welfare of the infant republic”. The provision for preventive detention is also found on other democratic countries like England and Canada, but only as a war-time, and not a peace time measure. In India, the Constitution visualizes the possibility of a law of preventive detention. In spite of all the emphasis on individual liberty, it has been found necessary in India to resort to preventive detention during peace time because of the unstable law and other situation in the country. Specifically, the Court held that Article 22 of the Constitution provides an exhaustive code of the procedural safeguards required of preventive detention laws. Although the PDA was challenged on the ground that it violated several fundamental rights provisions-Articles 14, 19, and 21 the Court found no constitutional weakness because the clear provisions of Article 22 (5) were satisfied.

Although the PDA lapsed in 1969, the Parliament enacted the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) only two years later. The provisions of the MISA were virtually identical to the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act. Following the infamous emergency of the mid-1970s in which preventive detention was widely used as a political weapon, the MISA was also allowed to expire in 1978. Two years later, upon Indira Gandhi’s return to power, a new preventive detention law was enacted-the National Security Act (NSA) – which remains in effect today.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India (1978), the court held that, a law relating to preventive detention must now satisfy not only the requirement of Article 22, but also the requirement of Article 21, of the Constitution, i.e. the procedure prescribed under the preventive detention law must be reasonable, just and fair, under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

In A.K. Roy v. U.O.I. (1982), held that though the preventive detention laws have to satisfy the requirement of Article 14, 19 and 21 they cannot be held unconstitutional per se so long as Article 22 and the legislative entries expressly sanction them.

In short, except for two brief periods, Indian law has accommodated preventive detainment since freedom. As anyone might expect, preventive detention has close itself into the institutional framework of Indian law implementation. The details of India’s “peace-time” preventive detention regime demonstrate both the nature and the prevailing modes of justifying this extraordinary practice. The remainder of this Part addresses these issues.[6]

1. PRESENT SCENARIO:
2. From that time till now central government imposed Preventive Detention many a times for the security of state or we can say for their own political interest which by then takes fundamental rights of a innocent people. And a similar act like NSA is in force in Jammu & Kashmir from 1978 that is PSA (Public Safety Act) and yes it is for the safety of Jammu & Kashmir and the nation that the person in suspicion of a threat to the security should be detained as there are many a times they are found out to be a terrorist. But it went sometime wrong when there is political interest. Same is the case for the PDP leader that they were detained on August 5 last year when the central government announced for the abrogation of Article 370, and still they are detained for the security of the state. And it’s been 9 months that the both leaders are still detained and their tenure is increased two times from that date. The only question arises from their detention is that whether their human rights are not violated or are they still a threat to Jammu & Kashmir or is there any political interest of others by their detention.
3. As coronavirus cases in the country spike, authorities have warned of invoking attempt to murder charge and the stringent National Security Act(NSA) against those participants who tries to spread coronavirus. NSA found out to be very useful but still our government lacks in execution that they were not able to avoid the spread of coronavirus from tablighi jamaat congregation.
4. CONCLUSION:

Article 22 of the Constitution of India guarantees certain Fundamental Rights to every arrested person. Clause (1) and (2) of Article 22 confer following four Fundamental Rights on such person.

1. Right to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrests.
2. Right not to be denied the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
3. Right to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of Magistrate.
4. Right not to be detained in custody beyond the prescribed period of twenty-four hours without the authority of a Magistrate.

Clause (3) contains two exceptions and provides that the above mentioned constitutional guarantees do not apply to enemy aliens and persons arrested or detained under any preventive detention law. Clauses (4) to (7) of Article 22 lay down certain fundamental principles as to preventive detention and guarantee certain Fundamental Rights to persons who are kept under preventive detention. Any law relating to preventive detention must in order to be valid, satisfy the requirements of clauses (4) to (7) of this Article. The Fundamental Rights, guaranteed by clauses (4) to (7) to persons detained under any law for preventive detention, relate to the maximum period of the detention, the provision of an Advisory Board to consider and report on the sufficiency of the cause for detention, the right to be informed of the grounds of detention and the right to have the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. The power of preventive detention is thus permit in by the Constitution as a necessary evil. But it is surrounded by various procedural safeguards to minimize as much as possible the danger of its abuse.

The research study identifies the different component parts of rights under Article 22 in the light of the Supreme Court decisions. The study is a modest attempt to trace the change of judicial interpretation in Article 22 with a view to finding out the judicial trend in relation to this fundamental right.

• It is better in the interest of the nation that there should be uniform law throughout India with respect to this unhealthy and disliked matter of detaining people without trial.
• There should be periodical review of detention cases.

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY:
13. Books: V. Kumar, Preventive Detention Law Of India (Konark Publishers PVT LTD, Delhi, 1991)
14. Journal: Derek P. Jinks, The Anatomy of an Institutionalized Emergency: Preventive Detention and Personal Liberty in India, 22 MICH. J. INT’L L. 311, 311-370 (2001), https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1374&context=mjil
15. Websites:
16. Anubhav Pandey, Human Rights violation of prisoners in India, iPleaders (Mar 15, 2020, 13:15 PM) https://blog.ipleaders.in/human-rights/
17. Chandradeep Kumar, What is preventive detention with respect to laws in India?, Quora, (Mar 19, 2020, 14;18 PM) (https://www.quora.com/What-is-preventive-detention-with-respect-to-laws-in-India

• GK Today, General History Of Preventive Detention, GKTODAY (Mar 22, 2020, 18:20 PM)   https://www.gktoday.in/gk/cgs-23-july-1-15-2016/20/ 

1. Indian Kanoon, Rights of an arrested people, Indian Kanoon, (Mar 25, 2020, 16:40 P.M.) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/581566/
2. Daniel Halper, America’s Long History of Preventative Detention, Washington Examiner (Apr 02, 2020, 11:50 P.M.) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/americas-long-history-of-preventative-detention

[1] Anubhav Pandey, Human Rights violation of prisoners in India, iPleaders (Mar 15, 2020,  13:15 PM) https://blog.ipleaders.in/human-rights/

[2] Chandradeep Kumar, What is preventive detention with respect to laws in India?, Quora, (Mar 19, 2020, 14;18 PM) (https://www.quora.com/What-is-preventive-detention-with-respect-to-laws-in-India

[3] GK Today, General History Of Preventive Detention, GKTODAY (Mar  22, 2020, 18:20 PM)   https://www.gktoday.in/gk/cgs-23-july-1-15-2016/20/ 

[4] Indian Kanoon, Rights of an arrested people, Indian Kanoon,  (Mar 25, 2020, 16:40 P.M.) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/581566/

[5] Daniel Halper, America’s Long History of Preventative Detention, Washington Examiner (Apr 02, 2020, 11:50 P.M.) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/americas-long-history-of-preventative-detention

[6] Derek P. Jinks, The Anatomy of an Institutionalized Emergency: Preventive Detention and Personal Liberty

in India, 22 MICH. J. INT’L L. 311, 311-370 (2001), https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1374&context=mjil