NEW DELHI | 5TH JUNE 2025
SUPREME COURT REITERATES PREVENTIVE DETENTION IS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXCEPTION, NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
The Supreme Court of India on Friday delivered a significant judgment in Dhanya M v. State of Kerala, where it criticized the misuse of preventive detention laws to incarcerate individuals who have already been granted bail in criminal cases.The Court quashed the preventive detention of Rajesh, a private money lender from Kerala, stating that such measures must be reserved for extraordinary threats to public order and not used as a tool to override the regular criminal justice process.
“Preventive detention is a draconian measure whereby a person who has not been tried and convicted can be detained and confined… This extreme mechanism is, however, sanctioned by Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution. Significantly, Article 22 also provides stringent norms to be adhered to while effecting preventive detention,”
— Supreme Court, quoting Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland
BACKGROUND:
Detention Under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007
Rajesh, who operated ‘Rithika Finance’ in Kerala, was detained on June 20, 2024, under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) by the District Magistrate of Palakkad.
He was branded a “notorious goonda” based on multiple FIRs relating to alleged loan sharking and assault. However, he was already out on bail in all ongoing criminal proceedings at the time of his detention.
His wife, Dhanya M, challenged the detention before the Kerala High Court via a Habeas Corpus petition, which was dismissed, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
SUPREME COURT: PREVENTIVE DETENTION IS NOT A BAIL CANCELLATION SUBSTITUTE
In setting aside the Kerala High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court strongly rebuked the State’s approach, emphasizing that preventive detention must not be used to bypass the bail process unless there are compelling reasons backed by concrete evidence.
“The circumstances pointed out 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,”
— Supreme Court in Dhanya M v. State of Kerala
The Court found no steps taken by the State to seek cancellation of bail in any of the four FIRs. Moreover, the Court noted that the terms of bail allegedly violated were not specified, rendering the preventive detention order premature and disproportionate.
PUBLIC ORDER VS. LAW AND ORDER: A VITAL DISTINCTION
The Supreme Court reiterated the distinction between disturbances to public order and ordinary criminal misconduct, drawing on precedents like SK Nazneen v. State of Telangana and Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana.
“The act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ from other similar acts, but in its potentiality—that is, its impact on society—it may be very different,”
— Supreme Court quoting earlier rulings
The bench concluded that the State of Kerala failed to establish how Rajesh’s actions posed a threat to public order, as opposed to being individual law-and-order issues.
QUOTING PRECEDENT: BAIL MUST BE RESPECTED
Citing Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, the Court warned against weaponizing preventive detention against those granted bail:
“The law of preventive detention should not be used merely to clip the wings of an accused who is involved in a criminal prosecution. When a person is enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinising the validity of an order of preventive detention based on the same charge,”
— Supreme Court quoting Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar
FINAL VERDICT
The Supreme Court ruled the detention unconstitutional and unsustainable, setting aside both:
The detention order under KAAPA.
The Kerala High Court’s judgment dismissing the habeas corpus plea.
“Preventive detention is a constitutional exception and not a substitute for regular criminal process,” the Court reiterated.
