In a recent significant ruling of M. Dhanya v/s State of Kerala & Others, the Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal against a preventive detention order, setting aside the decision of the District Magistrate, Palakkad, and the subsequent affirmation by the High Court of Kerala. The case concerned Rajesh, the husband of the appellant, who had been detained under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, on the grounds of being a "notorious goonda" and a threat to society. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the extraordinary nature of preventive detention and the stringent legal requirements for its application.
Background of the Detention:
Rajesh, who operates a registered lending firm, "Rithika Finance," was subjected to a detention order issued by the District Magistrate on June 20, 2024. This order was based on a recommendation from the Palakkad District Police, citing several criminal cases against him. These cases included charges under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012, and various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
Despite being on bail and reportedly complying with court conditions in all these cases, the District Magistrate proceeded with the preventive detention. The High Court of Kerala subsequently dismissed a writ petition filed by Rajesh's wife, affirming the detention order. The High Court concluded that it could not review the merits of the detaining authority's decision and found no procedural irregularities.
Supreme Court's Analysis and Findings:
The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the preventive detention was in accordance with the law. The Court, referencing its prior judgments in cases like Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland and Ors., and Icchhu Devi v. Union of India, reiterated that preventive detention is an exceptional power. It curtails an individual's liberty without trial and must, therefore, be used sparingly and in strict adherence to constitutional and statutory norms. The burden of proving conformity with due procedure rests with the detaining authority.
The Court highlighted two critical aspects:
Distinction Between "Law and Order" and "Public Order": The Supreme Court emphasized the crucial difference between a "law and order" situation and one that disturbs "public order." Citing SK. Nazneen v. State of Telangana and Nenavath Bujji etc. v. State of Telangana & Ors., the Court clarified that public order is affected when an act impacts the community or the public at large, disrupting the even tempo of life. In contrast, a law and order issue is confined to a few individuals directly involved. The Court found that the detention order failed to provide sufficient reasons explaining how Rajesh's activities, primarily related to money lending and associated offenses, constituted a threat to public order rather than merely a law and order problem. The observations in the detention order did not adequately demonstrate how his actions warranted such an exceptional measure.
Availability of Ordinary Criminal Law Remedies: A significant point of contention was that Rajesh was already on bail in all the cases considered for his detention. The Supreme Court observed that the State had not filed any applications for bail cancellation, despite alleging that Rajesh was violating bail conditions. The Court, drawing upon SK. Nazneen and Ameena Begum v. State of Telengana, reiterated that when ordinary criminal law provides sufficient means to address apprehensions, resorting to preventive detention is not the appropriate remedy. The Court stressed that preventive detention should not be used merely to restrict an accused person's liberty when it might not be possible to resist bail under ordinary criminal law.
Conclusion of the Court:
Given these findings, the Supreme Court concluded that the detention order could not be legally sustained. While the circumstances might have been grounds for the State to seek bail cancellation from competent courts, they did not justify preventive detention. The Court clarified that any future application for bail cancellation by the State must be decided independently of the Supreme Court's current observations.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the detention order dated June 20, 2024, and the High Court's affirming judgment dated September 4, 2024, thereby allowing the appeal. This judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual liberties against potentially overreaching state powers, particularly in the realm of preventive detention.
Section 3, Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act - 2007
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007
