ARTICLE 22,23

&24
SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ARBITRARY ARREST AND
D E T E N T I O N & R I G H T A G A I N S T E X P L O I TAT I O N
RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSONS
UNDER ORDINARY LAWS
• Clause (1) and (11) of Article 22 guarantees four rights on a person who is arrested for any
offence under an ordinary law:
• The right to be informed as soon as may be of ground of arrest.
• Right to consult and to be represented by a lawyer of his own choice
• Right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
• The freedom from detention beyond the said period except by the order of the magistrate.
• Available to both citizens and non citizens and not to persons detained under preventive detention
laws.
• D.K. Basu Guidelines
PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAWS

• Clauses 4 to 7 provide the procedure which is to be followed if a person is arrested under the law of preventive detention.
• No authoritative definition under Indian law.
• Difference between ‘punitive’ and ‘preventive’.
• Necessary evil ?
• The Preventive Detention Acts
I. The preventive Detention Act, 1950 (to cease on 1 st April, 1951 but extended till it lapsed on December 31, 1969)
II. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (revived) (repealed in 1978)
III. Prevention of Blackmarketing and maintenance of supplies of essential commodities Act (1979)
IV. National Security Ordinance (1980)(communal and caste riot and other activities prejudicial for the country’s security)
V. NSO amended in 1984 to make it more effective
• The amendment limits the scope of judicial review of preventive detention laws. The new
Section 5 inserted in the Act provided that a detention order under section 3 for which two or
more grounds have been given would not be deemed invalid merely because one of the
grounds are considered to be vague, non-existent, non-relevant, unconnected or invalid. It thus
nullified the effect of numerous decisions of courts in which the detention orders have been
struck down on the ground that one of the several grounds of detention was found to be vague,
non-existent, non-relevant, unconnected with the grounds of detention supplied to the detenue.
• However, the present laws give the detenu a right to go to the court and challenged the validity
of his detention.
A.K.ROY V UOI

Popularly called the NSA Act

Upheld the validity of NSA and its amendment
However, some directions were issued to safeguard the interests of detenues detained under NSA:
1) Immediately after detention his kith and kin must be informed in writing about the detention and place of detention
2) Detinue must be detained in a place where he habitually resides unless exceptional circumstances require detention
at some other place
3) Detinue is entitled to his book and writing materials, his own food, visits from friends and relatives
4) Must be kept separated from those who are convicted
5) No treatment of a punitive character should be meted out to him and he should be treated according to the civilises
norms of human dignity.
• Constitutional safeguards – clause 4 to 7 of Art 22
RIGHT AGAINST EXPLOITATION

• Article 23-24
• Peoples Union For Democratic Rights v. UOI – Article 23 is wide and unlimited and strikes at traffic in human
beings and beggar and other forms of forced labour. Includes slavery and any kind of labour which is ‘forced’.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI – PIL through letter – rebuked the govt for not taking actions- The bonded
labour system (Abolition) Act, 1976.
• M.C.Mehta v State of Tamil Nadu – children below 14 years cannot be employed in any hazardous industry,
mines and other works and has laid down exhaustive guidelines as to how the state authorities should protect
economic, social and humanitarian rights of millions of children engaged in Sivaski Crackers Factory.
• People’s Union For Democratic Rights v UOI – Construction work is hazardous employment and therefore
under Article 24. No child below the age of 14 may be employed in the construction work even if construction
industry is not included in the schedule to the Employment of Children Act, 1938.