The Allahabad High Court has delivered a strong censure against the police authorities in the Prayagraj Commissionerate, Uttar Pradesh, observing that the preventive detention powers vested in Police Commissioners under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) are being "misused to the hilt."
The Court's critical observations came while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a man named Mansoor Ahmed, who was illegally detained for eight days, a period far exceeding the statutory limits prescribed under the law. The judgment serves as a significant reminder of the constitutional safeguards enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and underscores the judiciary's role in curbing executive overreach.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi expressed shock at the state of affairs in the Commissionerate, noting that the powers granted to senior police authorities, which allow them to act as Magistrates, are being exercised arbitrarily. "This is shocking state of affairs in the Commissionerate, Prayagraj. The Commissioner of Police has been given the powers of a Magistrate, which are being misused to the hilt," the Bench observed.
The Court not only ordered the release and compensation of the petitioner but also flagged a systemic pattern of abuse, referencing a similar situation previously noted in the Ghaziabad Commissionerate.
The Facts Behind the Detention
The case arose from the detention of Mansoor Ahmad @ Lallu, the petitioner, on 19 March, 2026. According to the petition, respondent police officials forcibly entered his house at around 12:50 a.m. and took him to the police station without informing his wife, petitioner no. 2, of the reasons for his arrest. When the family visited the police station, they found that the petitioner had been badly beaten by the officers. Despite complaints being lodged through the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Portal and with the Commissioner of Police, the petitioner remained in custody.
The detention was purportedly carried out under Sections 170, 126, and 135 of the BNSS—provisions dealing with security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour. The police claimed that the petitioner was creating a breach of peace and that he was produced before the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) on the same day.
However, on that day, he was not released on a personal bond. Instead, the ACP directly sent him to judicial custody, fixing the next date for the execution of his bond as March 27, 2026 i.e. eight days later. The ACP's order, which was in a printed pro forma, lacked any recital that the petitioner had refused to furnish a bond on the day of his production, indicating a mechanical and illegal application of the law. The petitioner was ultimately released on March 27, 2026, only after the habeas corpus petition was filed before the High Court.
Why the Court Called the Detention Illegal
The High Court found this "flagrant violation" of the BNSS provisions to be indefensible. The Bench analysed the order dated 19 March 2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, and noted that it was a pre-printed pro forma that fixed the next date of hearing for the petitioner eight days later.
The Court highlighted that if the petitioner had not furnished a personal bond on the first day, the magistrate should have provided him an opportunity to do so the very next day, ie., 20 March 2026. By fixing a date eight days hence, the ACP kept the petitioner in illegal judicial custody for over a week, violating the spirit and letter of the law.
The Court also took cognisance of the larger systemic issue by referring to a list of detentions provided by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Prayagraj. This data revealed a disturbing trend where people were routinely sent to jail for extended periods under preventive detention provisions.
In 2024, 283 persons were detained, a number that surged to 1,321 in 2025, and 721 persons were detained up to June 2026, with detention periods extending up to 20 days or more. The Bench noted that this pattern demonstrated a clear misuse of the law.
In its judgment, the Court drew a parallel to its earlier decision in Chander Pal Singh and another vs State of UP, where it had already laid down detailed directions to prevent such illegal confinement and had set a compensation rate of Rs 25,000 per day for unlawful detention.
In concluding the judgment, the High Court reiterated its earlier directions from the Chander Pal Singh case, aiming to standardise the procedure for preventive detention across the state. The Court directed that any person detained preventively must be released upon execution of a personal bond (signature bond without monetary deposit) not exceeding Rs 20,000, unless the Magistrate provides specific written reasons for an increase.
It also mandated that if a person refuses to sign the bond, their refusal must be recorded via written and audio-visual means, and they must be produced before the Magistrate on a date they choose to enable them to furnish the bond.
The directive in Mansoor Ahmad @ Lallu vs State of UP is a resounding assertion that the Indian judiciary will not tolerate the subversion of liberty. By compensating the victim and penalising the erring officer, the Bench has ensured that the remedy is not merely declaratory but also remedial and punitive.
The judgment underscores the sacred duty of the state to protect the liberty of its citizens and serves as a beacon for the protection of constitutional rights against arbitrary state action. It is a clear call to the police administration to reform its practices and exercise its newly granted powers with the utmost responsibility and adherence to the rule of law.
Accountability Beyond Compensation
This judgment is of seminal importance as it unequivocally establishes the personal accountability of police officials for the misuse of preventive detention powers. By directing the State Government to pay Rs 2 lakh in compensation and subsequently recover the amount from the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police after a disciplinary inquiry, the Court has sent a powerful deterrent message.
The order emphasises that public authorities cannot hide behind the veil of official capacity to escape liability for violations of fundamental rights. It reinforces the principle that the exercise of power carries a corresponding duty to exercise restraint and adhere strictly to procedural safeguards.
Furthermore, the judgment serves as a critical check on the newly introduced provisions of the BNSS. While the new criminal code brings several reforms, this case highlights the potential for its abuse, particularly by empowered officials like Commissioners of Police who exercise magisterial powers.
The Court’s proactive approach, like directing the CJM to provide comprehensive data on all such detentions and the Commissioner of Police to file a compliance report, demonstrates the judiciary's willingness to engage in systemic correction. It acts as a stern warning against the "shocking state of affairs" and reiterates that preventive detention is a measure to prevent threats to public order, not a tool for punitive or arbitrary confinement.
(The author is an advocate and legal consultant practicing at the Allahabad High Court, with experience in criminal, corporate, and tax litigation. Formerly a legal correspondent at Bar & Bench, he began his career in legal journalism before transitioning to full-time litigation. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author's own. The Quint does not endorse or is responsible for them.))