Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal against the judgment of the Kerala High Court and quashed the preventive detention order passed against the appellant’s husband under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA). The Court held that the power of preventive detention is “extraordinary” and “must not be used in the ordinary course of nature,” especially when the detenu is already on bail and no application for cancellation of such bail has been made. The Court emphasized:
“The law of preventive detention should not be used merely to clip the wings of an accused who is involved in a criminal prosecution… It is not intended for the purpose of keeping a man under detention when under ordinary criminal law it may not be possible to resist the issue of orders of bail…”
Accordingly, the order dated 20 June 2024 by the District Magistrate and the High Court’s judgment dated 4 September 2024 were set aside.
Facts
The detenu, the husband of the appellant, was running a registered lending firm under the name “Rithika Finance.” On 20 June 2024, the District Magistrate, Palakkad, ordered his preventive detention under Section 3(1) of KAAPA, on the recommendation of the District Police. He was declared a “notorious goonda” and a threat to public order based on the following criminal cases:
- Crime No. 17/2020 – For violations of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012.
- Crime No. 220/2022 – For similar financial law violations.
- Crime No. 221/2022 – Involving Sections 294(b), 506 IPC along with financial laws.
- Crime No. 401/2024 – Involving serious IPC sections (341, 323, 324, 326) and offences under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
The appellant challenged this detention before the Kerala High Court by filing a writ of habeas corpus. The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the detention order.
Issues
Whether the preventive detention of the detenu under KAAPA was legally sustainable given that:
- He was already on bail in all cases.
- No violations of bail conditions were formally raised before the criminal courts.
- The detention order failed to demonstrate any impact on “public order” distinct from ordinary “law and order.”
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant contended that the detenu had been granted bail in all cases and was complying with bail conditions. The detention, therefore, was not warranted. Further, it was argued that the acts of the detenu pertained to private disputes or violations of financial laws, which do not disturb “public order,” a necessary precondition for detention under KAAPA.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State maintained that the detenu was a “known goonda” involved in multiple offences harmful to the maintenance of public order. They argued that preventive detention was justified under Section 3 of KAAPA. It was also submitted that procedural safeguards had been complied with, and the High Court had rightly refused to interfere under Article 226.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reemphasized that preventive detention is an “extraordinary power” enshrined under Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution and can only be used sparingly. The Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act aims to prevent anti-social activities but only where public order is at risk.
The Court clarified that the distinction between “law and order” and “public order” is critical—only the latter justifies preventive detention. The cases against the detenu, largely involving financial and personal disputes, did not cross this threshold.
The Court also analyzed Sections 2(j), 2(o), 3, 7, and 12 of KAAPA. It held that while the detenu might fall within the technical definition of a “known goonda,” the grounds cited in the detention order failed to demonstrate the necessary impact on public order.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon several key precedents:
- Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2011) 5 SCC 244]: Held that preventive detention is an exception to Article 21 and must be used in rare cases only.
- Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland [2025 SCC OnLine SC 502]: Emphasized strict adherence to procedural safeguards in preventive detention.
- Icchhu Devi v. Union of India [(1980) 4 SCC 531]: Burden lies on the detaining authority to justify conformity with constitutional safeguards.
- SK. Nazneen v. State of Telangana [(2023) 9 SCC 633]: Reiterated that preventive detention cannot be used when the accused is on bail and no public order is threatened.
- Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana [(2023) 9 SCC 587]: Disapproved the use of preventive detention where no bail cancellation applications were filed.
- Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [(1984) 3 SCC 14]: Called for “great caution” when preventive detention overlaps with pending criminal proceedings.
- Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana [2024 SCC OnLine SC 367]: Reiterated the fine distinction between “public order” and “law and order.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court concluded that:
- No material demonstrated how the detenu’s acts posed a real threat to “public order” as distinct from violations of law affecting private parties.
- No applications for cancellation of bail were filed despite allegations that the detenu violated bail conditions.
- The detention order lacked specific reasons and failed the proportionality test required under Article 21.
The Court held:
“Given the extraordinary nature of the power of preventive detention, no reasons are assigned by the detaining authority, as to why and how the actions of the detenu warrant the exercise of such an exceptional power.”
Conclusion
The Court allowed the appeal and quashed:
- The detention order dated 20 June 2024.
- The High Court judgment dated 4 September 2024.
It further clarified that any application for bail cancellation filed by the State must be adjudicated independently and without influence from this judgment.
Implications
This decision underscores the Supreme Court’s consistent approach that preventive detention must not be used to sidestep the criminal justice process. The judgment is a reaffirmation of the principle that detention without trial must be an exceptional measure. It sends a strong message to detaining authorities to distinguish carefully between issues of public order and ordinary law enforcement.
