Supreme Court Sets Aside Preventive Detention Under Kerala “Goonda” Law; Directs Ordinary Criminal Remedy for Bail Violations

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan heard an appeal against the Kerala High Court's affirmation of an order directing preventive detention of a man under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The challenge was filed by the detenu's wife, who sought a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the detenu was on bail in the underlying criminal cases and had complied with bail conditions.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the detention order dated 20 June 2024 and the High Court's judgment of 4 September 2024, and held that the exercise of preventive detention in the present facts was not justified. The bench observed that the power of preventive detention is "an extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly" and emphasized that preventive detention was an exception to Article 21 which "must be applied as such, as an exception to the main rule and only in rare cases." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is well settled that the provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature. The power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution itself, under Article 22(3)(b). However, this Court has emphasized in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu that the power of preventive detention is an exception to Article 21 and, therefore, must be applied as such, as an exception to the main rule and only in rare cases." The bench further recorded that "the order of detention cannot be sustained" on the facts before it and clarified that where ordinary criminal law remedies were available, those should have been pursued.

Background

The detenu, who ran a registered lending firm called 'Rithika Finance', faced multiple criminal complaints and cases across 2020–2024, including alleged offences under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and allegations under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. On 29 May 2024 the Palakkad District Police recommended detention; the District Magistrate issued a detention order on 20 June 2024 under Section 3(1) of the Act declaring the detenu a "known goonda". The High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, holding that the court in writ jurisdiction would not re-appreciate material and that procedural safeguards were complied with; it also noted that whether the cases would result in acquittal was not a matter for the detaining authority.

This Court considered settled law requiring strict application of preventive detention only in public order situations and distinguished such situations from ordinary law-and-order matters. Reliance was placed on precedents including SK Nazneen, Nenavath Bujji and decisions reiterating that detention orders must demonstrate how the individual's actions were prejudicial to public order. The bench noted that the detaining order did not assign reasons explaining how the detenu's conduct affected public order and that the State had not sought cancellation of bail in the underlying proceedings. The Court observed that "the law of preventive detention is a hard law and therefore it should be strictly construed" and held that the impugned order was not sustainable. The detenu had already been released by this Court on 10 December 2024 on the ground that the maximum statutory period had been completed. The appeal was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside; pending applications stood disposed of. The Court granted liberty to the State to seek cancellation of bail in the criminal courts, directing such applications to be decided uninfluenced by its observations.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 809; Criminal Appeal No.2897 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.14740 of 2024) Case Title: Dhanya M … Appellant(s) Versus State of Kerala & Ors. … Respondent(s) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not available For the Respondent(s): Not available