The Madras High Court has once again taken a strong stance against the Tamil Nadu government’s use of the Preventive Detention Act, commonly known as the Goondas Act, by quashing the detention of a man accused of financial fraud. The court observed that the authorities were using the Act too casually, marking the second such criticism in recent days.

The case involved C. Selvaraj, who was accused of availing bank loans worth Rs 3 crore and accumulating Rs 33 lakh in credit card debt using fake salary slips. Selvaraj was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1982, a move which the court found to be unwarranted.

A division bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice V. Sivagnanam pointed out that the offences Selvaraj was accused of did not pose any threat to public order or social harmony. The court questioned how the State could justify using the Goondas Act, a law meant for severe threats to public order, against an individual for financial fraud. The bench stressed that fraudulent bank transactions do not amount to disturbing social harmony, and thus, do not fall under the Act’s ambit.

The court’s decision comes just days after it had similarly quashed the detention of controversial YouTuber Savukku Shankar, who was also detained under the same Act. In that instance, the court had expressed concern that the use of preventive detention to suppress free speech could push the country back to a colonial-era style of governance.

During the hearing of Selvaraj’s case, the bench questioned the rationale behind the State’s decision to invoke the Goondas Act. The additional public prosecutor, E. Raj Tilak, argued that Selvaraj was detained to prevent him from committing similar offences in the future. However, the court rejected this justification, criticizing the State for what it described as the “casual use” of a draconian law against individuals.

The court further noted that the Supreme Court has made it clear that unlawful detention, even for a single day, is illegal. It urged the State government to carefully reconsider its approach to placing individuals under preventive detention, emphasizing that such decisions must be made with utmost seriousness and only in cases where public order is genuinely at risk.