Habeas Corpus In Preventive Detention Cases: Delays, Deference, And The Real-World Erosion Of Liberty
- IJLLR Journal
- 6 days ago
- 2 min read
Neha, BBA LLB (Hons.), Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.
Dr. Lakshmi Priya Vinjamuri, Professor of Law, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.
ABSTRACT
Preventive detention has been made an exception to the normal criminal process in the constitutional framework of India. However, it is also a situation where the guarantee of habeas corpus gets the most strained. This paper is of the view that the existence of judicial review formally does not take away liberty very much. Rather it is the combination of two practical facets: deference and delay, that leads to a loss of freedom. One of the things that delay can bring about is at the time level. It includes, among others, the time taken to supply the materials after which they are relied upon, the time taken to translate and communicate the grounds, the time taken to consider the representations made under Article 22(5), and the time taken to list and decide on the habeas petitions. On the other hand, forms of deference can be found in the use of doctrinal language to refer to matters of subjective satisfaction, the sensitivity of strategic borders as well as the recurrent change of classification of ordinary criminality to public order. When these two forces come together, a positive result in habeas proceedings may turn out to be only a symbolic triumph when the major part of detention has already taken place. By referring to a doctrinal mapping of Supreme Court jurisprudence and limited verifiable public data, the article reveals how courts constantly change their decisions between strict procedural insistence and contextual restraint to produce a remedial gap in actual time. It additionally refers to the current case involving the preventive detention of Sonam Wangchuk to exemplify how translation disputes, narrative framing, and postponements can diminish the urgency that habeas corpus is intended to represent. The article ends with a reform-minded doctrinal suggestion which considers quickness as a fundamental security, changes listing and adjournment ways, and makes it clear what deference can truly mean without turning preventive detention into an almost unreviewable executive area.
Keywords: Habeas corpus, preventive detention, Article 22(5), subjective satisfaction, public order.
