A.K. Roy v Union of India
Rule established
Preventive detention under the National Security Act is constitutional, including exclusion of legal representation before Advisory Boards, but Art.22(5) requires detention grounds to be furnished with sufficient particularity and promptness to enable effective representation.
Facts
- The National Security Ordinance, later the National Security Act, empowered the state to detain persons preventively on grounds including threats to state security and public order
- The detenu had no right to legal representation before the Advisory Board reviewing the detention
- Detenus challenged the constitutional validity of the Act, including the exclusion of legal representation and adequacy of procedural safeguards under Art.22
Issue
- Whether a preventive detention law can validly exclude legal representation before an Advisory Board, and what procedural safeguards Art.22(5) requires for a valid detention.
Held
- The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the preventive detention provisions, including the provision excluding legal representation before the Advisory Board, since preventive detention proceedings are not adversarial trials
- However, Art.22(5) requires that the detenu be given grounds of detention with sufficient particularity and as promptly as possible, to enable an effective representation
- A detenu, though denied a lawyer as of right, could be assisted by a friend at the Advisory Board hearing if the detaining authority was represented by a legal-trained person
- The judgment carefully balanced state security concerns against individual liberty
Ratio Decidendi
Preventive detention statutes are constitutionally permissible under Art.22, but the constitutional guarantee of an opportunity for effective representation requires the detaining authority to furnish detention grounds with adequate particularity and speed, and to maintain a basic parity of representation before the Advisory Board even where formal legal representation is excluded.
How to use it in an exam
- Part A: Central authority for the scope of procedural safeguards under Art.22(5) in preventive detention.
- Part B: Pair with Art.22 provisions on maximum detention periods and Advisory Board review requirements.
- Key line: "Exclusion of a lawyer as of right does not itself violate Art.22, provided the process otherwise ensures a fair opportunity to make representation."
Source
Source: AIR 1982 SC 710; landmark decision on preventive detention safeguards
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.