New Delhi: In a significant ruling on June 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dhanya M v. State of Kerala & Others, declared that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution or to circumvent bail orders. This landmark judgment, delivered by a Vacation Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan, set aside a preventive detention order issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, reinforcing the constitutional safeguards surrounding personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The decision emphasized the critical distinction between “public order” and “law and order” and underscored the extraordinary nature of preventive detention as a measure to be used sparingly.
Background of the Dhanya M v. State of Kerala Case
The case originated from the detention of Rajesh, a moneylender operating a registered lending firm named Rithika Finance in Palakkad, Kerala. Rajesh was labeled a “notorious goonda” by the District Police Head, Palakkad, and deemed a threat to society due to his involvement in multiple criminal cases related to his money-lending activities. These cases included:
- Crime No. 17/2020: Registered at Kasaba Police Station under Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, and Sections 3, 9(1)(a) of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012.
- Crime No. 220/2022: Filed at Town South Police Station under Section 3 read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, and Sections 9(a)(b) read with Section 3 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012.
- Crime No. 221/2022: Involved charges under Sections 294(b) and 506(I) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alongside provisions of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act.
- Crime No. 401/2024: Included serious charges under Sections 341, 323, 324, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
On May 29, 2024, the Palakkad District Police Head issued Recommendation No. 54/Camp/2024-P-KAA(P)A, leading to a detention order by the District Magistrate, Palakkad, on June 20, 2024, under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. Rajesh was subsequently taken into custody.
Rajesh’s wife, Dhanya M, challenged the detention order by filing a writ petition (WP(CRL) No. 874/2024) before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, seeking a writ of habeas corpus to declare her husband’s detention illegal. On September 4, 2024, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the detention order, prompting Dhanya M to appeal to the Supreme Court via Criminal Appeal No. 2897 of 2025, arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 14740/2024.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
The Supreme Court’s judgment, authored by Justice Sanjay Karol, provided a detailed analysis of preventive detention, its constitutional framework, and its limitations. The court made the following critical observations:
Preventive Detention as an Extraordinary Power
- Sparingly Used Power: Preventive detention is an extraordinary measure that curtails an individual’s liberty in anticipation of potential future offenses. It must be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
- Constitutional Recognition: The power is recognized under Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution but is an exception to Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
- Rare Application: The court emphasized that preventive detention should be applied only in rare cases, as it deprives individuals of their liberty without trial or conviction.
Burden of Proof on Detaining Authority
- Justification Required: The detaining authority bears the burden of proving that the detention conforms to the procedure established by law, as mandated by Article 21.
- Scrutiny of Actions: Preventive detention orders must be rigorously checked against constitutional and statutory norms to ensure compliance.
Public Order vs. Law and Order
The court reiterated the distinction between “public order” and “law and order,” drawing from precedents such as SK. Nazneen v. State of Telangana (2023) and Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana (2024):
- Scope of Law and Order: Law and order issues are broader and typically involve acts affecting a few individuals directly.
- Scope of Public Order: Public order has a narrower ambit, referring to acts that disrupt the even tempo of the community or a specified locality, affecting a wide spectrum of the public.
- Degree and Extent: The distinction lies not only in the nature of the act but also in its degree and extent of impact on society.
In Rajesh’s case, the court found that the detention order did not demonstrate how his actions constituted a threat to public order. The authorities failed to provide reasons justifying the use of preventive detention, rendering the order unsustainable.
Preventive Detention and Bail Cancellation
The court strongly cautioned against using preventive detention to bypass bail orders or circumvent regular criminal procedures:
- Bail Violation Procedure: If the state believed Rajesh was violating bail conditions, it should have moved for bail cancellation rather than resorting to preventive detention.
- No Substitute for Criminal Law: Preventive detention should not be used when ordinary criminal law provides sufficient means to address the situation.
- Caution with Bail Cases: When a person is on bail, great caution must be exercised in scrutinizing preventive detention orders, especially if based on the same charges being tried in a criminal court.
The court noted that the detention order failed to specify the bail conditions allegedly violated or provide evidence of such violations, further undermining its validity.
Analysis of the Present Case
The Supreme Court allowed Dhanya M’s appeal and quashed the preventive detention order, citing several deficiencies:
- Lack of Public Order Nexus: The detention order did not articulate how Rajesh’s actions disrupted public order, as opposed to merely constituting a law and order issue.
- Absence of Reasoning: The detaining authority provided no reasons to justify the use of extraordinary powers under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.
- Failure to Pursue Bail Cancellation: The state’s failure to file an application for bail cancellation indicated an improper reliance on preventive detention to address alleged bail violations.
The court concluded that the circumstances might have warranted bail cancellation but did not justify preventive detention, reinforcing the principle that such measures cannot substitute regular criminal procedures.
Constitutional and Legal Framework of Preventive Detention
Preventive detention, described as a “draconian” and “colonial legacy” measure, allows authorities to detain individuals without trial for reasons such as maintaining public order or national security. The constitutional and legal framework includes:
- Article 22(3)(b): Permits preventive detention but imposes stringent safeguards.
- Safeguards:
- No detention beyond three months without approval from an Advisory Board.
- Grounds for detention must be communicated to the detenu at the earliest opportunity.
- The detenu must be provided the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention.
- Key Judgments:
- Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011): Preventive detention is an exception to Article 21 and should be applied rarely.
- Vijay Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar (1984): Preventive detention should not circumvent regular criminal procedures.
- Icchu Devi v. Union of India (1980): The detaining authority bears the burden of justifying detention.
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Upheld the constitutional validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
Principles and Safeguards of Preventive Detention
The Supreme Court outlined the following principles governing preventive detention:
- Strict Compliance: Prescribed safeguards must be strictly observed to ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory norms.
- Exceptional Use: Preventive detention is an exception to Article 21 and must be applied only in rare cases.
- Strict Construction: Preventive detention laws are “hard laws” and must be strictly construed to protect individual liberty.
- Burden of Proof: The detaining authority must prove that the detention is lawful and necessary.
- Restrictions on Use: Preventive detention should not be used to suppress accused individuals involved in criminal prosecution or to deny bail when regular criminal law suffices.
Implications of the Judgment
The Dhanya M v. State of Kerala judgment has far-reaching implications for the application of preventive detention laws in India:
- Protection of Personal Liberty: The ruling reinforces the sanctity of Article 21, ensuring that personal liberty is not arbitrarily curtailed.
- Judicial Oversight: It strengthens judicial scrutiny of preventive detention orders, placing a higher burden on authorities to justify their actions.
- Public Order Clarification: The distinction between public order and law and order provides clarity for authorities and courts in assessing the appropriateness of preventive detention.
- Curbing Misuse: By prohibiting the use of preventive detention as a substitute for bail cancellation, the judgment curtails potential misuse of extraordinary powers by the state.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dhanya M v. State of Kerala is a landmark in the jurisprudence of preventive detention, reaffirming the constitutional commitment to personal liberty and due process. By quashing the detention order and clarifying the limited scope of preventive detention, the court has sent a strong message that such measures cannot be used to bypass regular criminal procedures or undermine bail orders. This judgment serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between state authority and individual rights, ensuring that preventive detention remains an exception, not the rule.
FAQs
1. What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dhanya M v. State of Kerala (2025)?
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dhanya M v. State of Kerala (2025) is a landmark judgment that clarifies preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution or to bypass bail orders. The court set aside a detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, emphasizing that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure to be used sparingly, only in cases threatening public order, not mere law and order issues. This decision reinforces the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21 and strengthens judicial oversight to prevent misuse of preventive detention laws.
2. What is the difference between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ as clarified by the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court distinguished between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ in Dhanya M v. State of Kerala. ‘Law and order’ refers to broader issues involving acts that affect a few individuals directly, such as isolated criminal incidents. In contrast, ‘public order’ has a narrower scope, involving acts that disrupt the even tempo of the community or a specified locality, impacting a wider spectrum of society. The distinction lies in the degree and extent of the act’s impact on society, with preventive detention justified only for public order threats, not law and order issues.
3. What are the constitutional safeguards for preventive detention in India?
Preventive detention is governed by Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India, which allows detention for reasons like public order or national security. Key safeguards include:
Right to Representation: The detenu must be given the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention. These safeguards ensure compliance with Article 21, protecting personal liberty and preventing arbitrary detention.
Time Limit: No detention beyond three months without approval from an Advisory Board.
Communication of Grounds: Authorities must inform the detenu of the grounds for detention at the earliest opportunity.
4. Why did the Supreme Court quash the detention order in Dhanya M v. State of Kerala?
The Supreme Court quashed the detention order against Rajesh, a moneylender, because the detaining authority failed to justify how his actions threatened public order, as required under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The court found:
The case involved law and order issues, not public order, making preventive detention inappropriate. This ruling underscores that preventive detention cannot replace regular criminal procedures.
The order lacked reasons explaining why preventive detention was necessary.
The state did not pursue bail cancellation despite alleging bail violations, indicating misuse of preventive detention.
5. How does the Dhanya M judgment impact the use of preventive detention laws in India?
The Dhanya M v. State of Kerala judgment limits the misuse of preventive detention by reinforcing its exceptional nature. It prohibits using preventive detention to circumvent bail orders or regular criminal law, emphasizing that such measures are only justified for public order threats. The ruling strengthens judicial scrutiny, placing the burden on detaining authorities to prove compliance with constitutional norms under Article 21. It also clarifies that bail cancellation should be pursued when violations occur, ensuring preventive detention remains a rare and carefully justified action.
