In Chander Pal Singh, a matter involving preventive proceedings, the Allahabad High Court has simultaneously addressed a part of the criminal justice system that often receives less attention than ordinary criminal proceedings and the more overbearing reality of mechanisms designed to avert disturbances having gradually become instruments to deprive people of liberty. The state has the power to intervene before a crime occurs if it is reasonably apprehensive that a person is a threat to public order. However, it has acquired a habit of exercising that power routinely, resulting in detentions without any substantive criminal charge. The High Court’s order was based, the Bench said, on a “highly irresponsible” deprivation of personal liberties in Uttar Pradesh, where police officers and executive magistrates were using preventive powers to incarcerate individuals on the basis of arguably minor apprehensions. In Chander Pal Singh as well, the petitioner, a physically challenged Dalit advocate, had been arrested over a petty dispute with a neighbour. The Bench said that between May 2025 and April 2026, around 2,500 people were reportedly subjected to preventive detention proceedings in Ghaziabad, despite a 2021 State policy to guide the exercise of such powers.

The guidelines in response are commendable; if implemented appropriately, they could reduce the use of preventive incarceration in neighbourhood and property disputes; require executive magistrates to justify their decisions; encourage constitutional challenges to unlawful preventive detention; and generate appellate scrutiny of the compensation framework. They may also snap at the heels of magistrates who cite unspecified “communal tensions” to jail protesters and who impose prohibitively unaffordable bonds for release. Further, even if the ruling does not directly impinge on the detention of activist Sonam Wangchuk under the NSA, it critiques the idea of using the excuse of maintaining peace to silence dissent and reminds the state that it still has a responsibility to maintain peace with peace. The ruling may also apply to workers and activists recently detained in New Delhi if held under Sections 126 or 170 of the BNSS without valid grounds. That said, implementing the ruling will be difficult. The Bench said that compensation for unlawful detention can be recovered from the salary of the magistrate concerned and/or police officer following a disciplinary hearing. However, the executive has been historically reluctant to penalise its personnel. Second, executive magistrates are part of the State administration and their careers may depend on maintaining ‘peace’ as the State defines it. Addressing these barriers could reform preventive proceedings in India.