In a key judgment reiterating the importance of personal liberty under the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that preventive detention laws cannot be misused to bypass the due process of bail cancellation. This decision came in the case of Dhanya M v. State of Kerala, where the Court struck down an order of detention issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA).
Delivering the judgment, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan emphasized that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure, and must be used sparingly and strictly in accordance with constitutional safeguards, especially those enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the State to approach the competent Courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention.”
The case arose from the preventive detention of Rajesh, a licensed moneylender operating under ‘Rithika Finance’, who was detained by the District Magistrate of Palakkad on June 20, 2024, under Section 3 of KAAPA. The detention was based on multiple pending criminal cases, including offences under:
- Kerala Money Lenders Act
- Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act
- Various provisions of the IPC
- The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Challenging this detention, Dhanya M, the wife of the detenu, filed a writ petition for habeas corpus before the Kerala High Court. The High Court, however, upheld the detention, stating that procedural formalities had been met and the detaining authority need not consider the likelihood of acquittal.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s order and set aside the detention. The bench clarified that preventive detention laws must not be applied as a tool to override bail orders or sidestep criminal prosecution.
“Preventive detention is an extraordinary measure that must be sparingly used, being an exception to the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The Court cited Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2011) 5 SCC 244], emphasizing that preventive detention should only be used as an exception to the main rule and not as a general mechanism to detain someone with pending criminal charges.
The Court further relied on:
- Icchhu Devi v. Union of India [(1980) 4 SCC 531] – holding that the burden is on the detaining authority to show conformity with law and Constitution.
- Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana [(2021) 9 SCC 415] – reiterating that preventive detention must be justified with respect to Article 21 and the governing statute.
Law and Order vs Public Order – A Crucial Distinction
In analyzing the rationale for detention, the Court distinguished between mere law and order issues and threats to public order.
Citing recent judgments such as SK. Nazneen v. State of Telangana [(2023) 9 SCC 633] and Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana , the bench held:
“The distinction between the areas of ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of public, it could raise a problem of law and order only.”
Applying this reasoning, the Court observed:
“In our view, the attending facts and circumstances do not fall under the category of a public order situation. The observations made in the detention order do not ascribe any reason as to how the actions of the detenu are against the public order of the State.”
Not a Substitute for Challenging Bail
The judgment also underscored that if the State believed the detenu’s release on bail posed a risk, the appropriate remedy was to approach a competent court to seek bail cancellation, not resort to preventive detention.
“There may have existed sufficient grounds to appeal against the bail orders, but the circumstances did not warrant the circumvention of ordinary criminal procedure to resort to an extraordinary measure of the law of preventive detention.” — Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana
The Court reiterated this principle by referencing Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [(1984) 3 SCC 14]:
“It is well settled that the law of preventive detention is a hard law and therefore it should be strictly construed. Care should be taken that the liberty of a person is not jeopardised unless his case falls squarely within the four corners of the relevant law. The law of preventive detention should not be used merely to clip the wings of an accused who is involved in a criminal prosecution.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the preventive detention order dated June 20, 2024, and also overturned the Kerala High Court’s decision dated September 4, 2024.
The bench concluded that the State could have sought bail cancellation, but instead misused the extraordinary power of preventive detention, which was neither justified nor warranted under the facts.
