Gitanjali J. Angmo & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors.: Preventive Detention, Habeas Corpus and the Doctrine of Infructuous Relief

Abstract

The decision in Gitanjali J. Angmo & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Presents an important opportunity to examine the relationship between preventive detention and constitutional safeguards protecting personal liberty in India. Although the Supreme Court did not adjudicate upon the merits of the detention order, the case raises significant questions regarding the effectiveness of habeas corpus petitions when the detention order is revoked before judicial scrutiny can occur. The court disposed of the petition as infructuous after noting that the impugned detention order had already been revoked. This comment analyses the constitutional framework governing preventive detention, the role of judicial review under Articles 21, 22, and 32 of the Constitution, and the implications of disposing detention challenges on technical grounds. It argues that while the court’s approach was procedurally correct, greater judicial engagement with the legality of detention orders may be necessary to prevent executive authorities from avoiding constitutional scrutiny through subsequent revocation. The case highlights continuing tension between national security concerns and the protection of individual liberty in constitutional democracies.