New Delhi : The Supreme Court of India on Monday ordered the immediate release of a young man detained under the National Security Act, 1980, in connection with a caste-based humiliation incident reported from Madhya Pradesh. The Court stayed the directions issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that had resulted in the invocation of preventive detention provisions against the accused.
The order was passed by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta while hearing a special leave petition filed by Anuj Pandey, who had been detained pursuant to the High Court’s suo motu proceedings. The Bench issued notice in the matter and directed that, until further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned High Court order would remain stayed, while also directing that the petitioner be released from custody forthwith ANUJ PANDEY PETITIONER(S)__VERS….
The case traces back to a video that went viral on social media showing a young man from the Other Backward Classes community being publicly humiliated at a village temple in Damoh district. In the video, the youth was allegedly forced to wash the feet of an upper-caste man and drink the water. The incident was reportedly linked to an AI-generated meme purportedly shared by the accused, which was perceived as offensive and triggered public outrage.
Taking suo motu cognisance of the viral video, the High Court had described the incident as a serious affront to human dignity and constitutional values. It directed the State authorities to take strict action, including invoking preventive detention laws against those involved. Acting on these directions, the District Magistrate passed detention orders under Section 3 of the National Security Act.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the legality of the preventive detention, arguing that the statutory threshold for invoking the NSA had not been met. It was contended that while the alleged conduct was condemnable, it did not amount to a threat to public order warranting preventive detention. The petition also raised procedural objections, noting that the detention orders were executed even before the High Court’s directions were formally uploaded and communicated.
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court indicated that preventive detention laws cannot be applied mechanically or as a response to public outrage. The Bench underscored the need for strict compliance with constitutional safeguards, particularly when personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is at stake.
The matter has been kept pending for further consideration. The Court is expected to examine the broader constitutional questions arising from judicial directions that lead to executive action under preventive detention statutes, while also balancing the imperative of addressing caste-based atrocities with the protection of individual liberty.