In its third and final report, the commission chaired by retired Chief Justice J.C. Shah said district authorities “used MISA extensively against the members of DMK in particular and others allegedly having associations with this party, simply by furnishing vague and general grounds in a stereotyped manner,” a practice the commission deemed contrary to the spirit of the law.
The report recorded that 1,027 people were detained under MISA in Tamil Nadu during the Emergency (June 25 1975 – March 21 1977). Of these, 570 were affiliated with opposition political parties, 139 belonged to banned organisations and 318 were classified as anti‑socials, criminals or others.
Among the political detainees, the largest group – 419 individuals – were members or associates of the DMK. By contrast, the banned Communist Party of India (Marxist‑Leninist) accounted for 72 detentions and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for 47.
The commission highlighted that while the DMK remained in power before the Emergency, only one AIADMK member was detained under MISA and the act was applied to just 45 members of banned organisations and 212 “anti‑socials and criminals.” The wave of political arrests began only after President’s Rule was imposed, with the DMK bearing the brunt of the crackdown, followed by the Dravid Kazhagam (35 detentions).
Investigators found that district magistrates often filed detention orders with only a copy of the police report and a brief, generic statement of grounds, omitting any specific evidence. Typical justifications described detainees as “active workers or sympathisers” who commanded “rowdy elements” and might “indulge in prejudicial acts,” without citing concrete incidents, speeches, or criminal activity.
The commission noted a recurring pattern of labeling DMK and Dravid Kazhagam members as “rowdies” or accusing them of “interfering in district administration” and amassing wealth, yet no supporting documentation was produced. In many cases, the only allegation was that the detainee had made anti‑government statements, with no details of time, place or content.
Shah’s findings underscore concerns that the Emergency’s security legislation was exploited to suppress political opposition in Tamil Nadu, raising questions about the legality of the detentions and the procedural safeguards that were bypassed during that period.