SUPREME COURT QUASHES PREVENTIVE DETENTION UNDER KAAPA: UPHOLDS LIBERTY AS A CONSTITUTIONAL BULWARK

In a landmark decision reinforcing the constitutional mandate of personal liberty, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala (Criminal Appeal No. 2897 of 2025, decided on 06.06.2025) set aside the Judgment dated 04.09.2024 passed by the Kerala High Court, which had upheld the preventive detention of one Rajesh under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA). The Supreme Court held that the State had failed to place on record any cogent or compelling material to justify resorting to the extraordinary measure of preventive detention. It further observed that the invocation of such power, in the absence of substantive grounds, constituted an unwarranted overreach.

 

BRIEF FACTS

The Detenu, Rajesh—a registered moneylender operating under the name Rithika Finance—was detained by the District Magistrate, Palakkad, on 20 June 2024 under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA). The detention was based on multiple FIRs, including those under:

• The Kerala Money Lenders Act
• The Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act
• Various sections of the Indian Penal Code, and
• The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

 

The Detenu was on bail in all these pending cases. His wife, Dhanya M, filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Kerala High Court, which was dismissed with the Court holding that procedural compliance under the preventive detention law had been met.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Supreme Court, alleging abuse of preventive detention powers, and emphasizing that the State had bypassed ordinary criminal law remedies like bail cancellation.

 

Though the maximum permissible period of detention had expired and Rajesh had already been released, the Supreme Court proceeded to examine the legality of the detention on merits. The Court emphasized that where personal liberty is curtailed without trial, constitutional scrutiny cannot be bypassed simply on the ground that the detention period has elapsed.

 

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Whether the said detention under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 was justified in light of the Detenu being on bail in all pending criminal case.
2. Whether the acts attributed to the Detenu posed a threat to ‘public order’ or merely involved ‘law and order’ issues.
3. Whether the State’s invocation of preventive detention amounted to an abuse of process, bypassing established remedies in criminal law.

 

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court commenced its analysis by reaffirming the constitutional ethos surrounding personal liberty, underscoring the safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. It reiterated that any curtailment of an individual’s liberty—particularly through preventive detention—must withstand the strictest constitutional scrutiny and adhere to both procedural and substantive due proc. The Court reminded that preventive detention laws are not to be employed routinely, and such deprivation of liberty must pass the strict tests of necessity and proportionality.

 

The Bench closely examined the statutory scheme under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, specifically the definitions of “goonda” under Section 2(j) and “known goonda” under Section 2(o). While Rajesh did technically qualify as a “known goonda” under the letter of the law—on account of more than two FIRs registered against him—the Court made a pointed distinction between technical qualification and substantive justification.

 

It observed that all four cases against Rajesh were of a similar nature—pertaining to alleged illegal money lending and threats—and that none involved violence or acts that could disrupt public tranquillity at large. In this regard, the Court cited multiple precedents that “public order” is not synonymous with “law and order”, and preventive detention cannot be triggered merely by habitual law-breaking unless such conduct poses a real threat to society at large.

 

The Court also found fault with the State’s inaction in the regular criminal law route. Despite Rajesh being on bail in all four cases, there was no move by the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail, nor any showing that the bail conditions had been violated. The Bench strongly held that preventive detention cannot be used as a tool to circumvent or nullify bail orders granted by courts of law.

 

CONCLUSION

Allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court unequivocally quashed both the detention order passed by the District Magistrate and the Kerala High Court’s judgment affirming the same, holding that the impugned action lacked the necessary factual and legal foundation required for invoking preventive detention. The Court held that invoking preventive detention in such circumstances amounted to an arbitrary and disproportionate infringement on personal liberty, and that the constitutional framework does not permit such extraordinary measures to be used for controlling ordinary criminal or regulatory infractions.

This decision marks a critical reaffirmation of the principle that preventive detention is an extreme tool meant for exigent situations—such as grave threats to public peace or national security—and must not become a convenient administrative shortcut in dealing with difficult individuals.

In doing so, the Court has once again positioned itself as the vigilant sentinel of liberty, reminding the State machinery that no power, howsoever wide, can override constitutional safeguards, and that Rule of Law demands restraint, due process, and above all, respect for individual rights.

 

SARTHAK KALRA

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

 

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled What is Death Sentence? Meaning, Process & Rights in India Explained | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma | can be viewed at the link below: