The Indian Constitution enshrines a robust framework of fundamental rights designed to safeguard individual liberty and dignity. However, the State retains significant powers such as preventive detention that can restrict personal freedom in the interest of national security, public order, or the maintenance of law. This study critically examines the tension between these competing interests by exploring two interconnected legal domains: preventive detention and compensation for wrongful arrests. While preventive detention laws such as the National Security Act (NSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) are intended to pre-empt threats, their misuse has led to serious human rights concerns, including arbitrary arrests, prolonged detention without trial, and denial of legal remedies.
The second focus of this study is the judicial response to wrongful arrests and the mechanisms, or lack thereof, for compensation. Although Indian jurisprudence recognizes the right to compensation under Article 21 for unlawful detention, the absence of a uniform statutory framework leaves many victims without adequate redress. This paper analyses landmark Supreme Court judgments and international legal standards to evaluate the effectiveness of existing safeguards.
Through doctrinal analysis and case studies, this research argues that a disproportionate emphasis on state security without adequate accountability mechanisms undermines constitutional guarantees. It calls for the introduction of stronger judicial oversight, legislative reforms to limit the scope of preventive detention, and the establishment of a comprehensive compensation framework for victims of wrongful arrest and detention. The study aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on harmonizing individual rights with the legitimate needs of state power in a constitutional democracy.
