“In any civilized jurisdiction, private interest of an individual should yield to the public interest. That is how the constitutional guarantees do operate. Absolute rights & privileges are unknown to matured constitutions. Laws of the kind do exist even in USA; American law eschews it except where legislatures and courts deem it necessary to prevent grave public harms. The law then tends to unapologetically countenance detention, but only to the extent necessary to prevent those harms. In Australia, as a general rule individuals cannot be preventively detained beyond a particular period. However, many exceptions are recognized by the High Court of Australia, i.e., apex court of the country vide FARDONA vs ATTORNEY GENERAL (QLd)(2004) HCA46- 223 CLR 575 . In 2001, Canada enacted Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which permits preventive detention on the ground of threat to national security. The Supreme Court of Canada in CHARCHARKAOUI vs CANADA, 2007 SCC 9 (Can) frowned on this. In response, Canadian Parliament has revised this statute. Even in UK under Section 226A of Criminal Justice Act, 2003, the Secretary of State can continue detention of a person subject to referring the matter to the Parole Board and its decision. In the landmark case of SECRETARY OF THE STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT vs. E & ANOTHER , (2007) UKHL 47, House of Lords highlighted the limits of Governmental powers in relation to national security and human rights protection, is also true. All this shows that the law relating to preventive detention obtains in every jurisdiction of necessity, regardless of its varying scope and application.”
