LexDHANYA M versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 354 : 2025 INSC 809 Dhanya M v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2897 of 2025) 06 June 2025 [Sanjay Karol* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the preventive detention of the detenu is in accordance with law. Headnotes† Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 – ss.3, 2(j), (o) – Order of detention u/s.3(1), if sustainable: Held: No – s.2(j) states that a person who indulges in activities “harmful to maintenance of public order” is covered by the Act – In the present case, the facts and circumstances do not fall under the category of a public order situation – The detention order does not state any reason as to how the actions of the detenu were against the public order of the State – Given the extraordinary nature of the power of preventive detention, no reasons were assigned by the detaining authority, as to why and how the actions of the detenu warranted the exercise of such an exceptional power – State should move for cancellation of bail of the detenu, instead of placing him under the law of preventive detention – Exercise of power u/s.3 was not justified in law – Order of detention and the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the said order passed by the District Magistrate u/s.3(1), are set aside – Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 – Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 – Penal Code, 1860 – SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. [Paras 17, 19, 21-23] Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 – ss.2(j), (o), 3, 7, 12 – Scheme and object of the Act – Discussed. [Paras 12-15] Constitution of India – Art.22 – Preventive detention – Extraordinary power, exercise of: * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 355 Dhanya M v. State of Kerala & Ors. Held: Preventive detention is an extraordinary power 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 is an exception to Art.21 and, therefore, must be applied as an exception to the main rule and only in rare cases. [Para 9] Case Law Cited Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu [2011] 4 SCR 740 : (2011) 5 SCC 244; Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland and Ors., 2025 SCC Online SC 502; Icchhu Devi v. Union of India [1981] 1 SCR 640 : (1980) 4 SCC 531; Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telengana [2021] 8 SCR 978 : (2021) 9 SCC 415; SK. Nazneen v. State of Telangana (2023) 9 SCC 633; Nenavath Bujji etc. v. State of Telangana & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367; Ameena Begum v. State of Telengana [2023] 11 SCR 958 : (2023) 9 SCC 587 – referred to. List of Acts Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007; Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958; Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012; Penal Code, 1860; SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Preventive detention; Detenu; Order of detention; Detention order; “harmful to maintenance of public order”; Public order situation; ‘goonda’; ‘notorious goonda’; ‘known goonda’; District Magistrate; Detaining authority; Cancellation of bail of the detenu; Writ of Habeas Corpus; State of Kerala; Anti-social activities; Illegal detention; Power of preventive detention; Extraordinary power; Detention order set aside. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2897 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2024 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WPCRL No. 874 of 2024 356 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Ajay Prabhu S, Amit Sangwan, Sibi Kargil, Ms. R. Shase. Advs. for the Respondents: Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Mrs. Ashly Harshad. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Leave Granted. 2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 4th September, 2024 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP(CRL)No.874/2024, whereby the order dated 20th June, 2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Palakkad, directing the husband of the appellant, Rajesh1 to be kept under preventive detention in prison in terms of Section 3 of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 20072 was affirmed. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the detenu is running a registered lending firm in the name of ‘Rithika Fi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.