Preventive Detention Is a Draconian Measure”: Supreme Court Quashes Kerala Detention Order in Dhanya M Case
- Chintan Shah
- Jun 9
- 4 min read
Introduction
Case Name: Dhanya M v. State of Kerala & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 2897 of 2025
Date of Judgement: 6 June 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr Justice Manmohan
Appellant: Dhanya M
Respondents: State of Kerala and Others
Advocates: Not specified in judgement
Statutes and Sections Cited:
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007: Sections 2(j), 2(o), 3, 7, 12
Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958: Sections 3, 17
Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012: Sections 3, 4, 9(1)(a), 9(a)(b)
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 294(b), 506(I), 341, 323, 324, 326
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Constitution of India: Articles 21, 22(3)(b), 226
Key Precedents Cited:
Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244
Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 502
Icchhu Devi v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 531
Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana, (2021) 9 SCC 415
SK Nazneen v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 633
Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367
Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587
Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 3 SCC 14
Analytical Commentary
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dhanya M v. State of Kerala reasserts foundational constitutional principles while scrutinising the misuse of preventive detention laws by State authorities. Delivered by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr Justice Manmohan, the judgment stands as a stern reminder of the exceptional nature of preventive detention and the strict scrutiny such actions warrant.
Factual Background
The detenu, Rajesh, husband of the appellant Dhanya M, operated a registered finance business under the name Rithika Finance. The District Magistrate, Palakkad, issued an order of preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (“the Act”), based on police recommendation, branding him as a ‘notorious goonda’ involved in four criminal cases between 2020 and 2024.
All cases broadly related to money-lending and associated criminal behaviour.
The appellant challenged the detention before the Kerala High Court, seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to the present appeal.
Judicial Reasoning and Key Observations
Preventive Detention: An Extraordinary Power
The Court reaffirmed that preventive detention is an “extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly.” It curtails personal liberty without trial, necessitating careful compliance with procedural and constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22.
“Preventive detention is a draconian measure… sanctioned by Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution. As it deprives a person of liberties without conviction, the prescribed safeguards must be strictly observed.” – Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland 【Para 10】
Failure to Distinguish Between Public Order and Law & Order
A crucial ground for setting aside the detention was the State’s failure to demonstrate that Rajesh’s actions disturbed public order, not merely law and order. Citing precedents, the Court underscored that a preventive detention order must target threats to public tranquility, not just individual criminal offences.
“Public order is the even tempo of life of the community… The act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. It is the potentiality, its impact on society, that matters.” – Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana
In the present case, the Court found no credible evidence that the detenu’s conduct had community-wide ramifications warranting invocation of preventive detention.
Procedural Lapses and Lack of Evidentiary Support
Although the detaining authority labelled Rajesh a ‘notorious goonda’, it failed to establish how his actions endangered public order. Moreover, while asserting that he violated bail conditions, the State had not initiated any applications for bail cancellation—an ordinary legal remedy.
“No application has been filed by the respondent-State in any of the four cases alleging violation of such conditions… The State should move for cancellation of bail, instead of placing him under preventive detention.” – SK Nazneen v. State of Telangana
This failure to utilize existing legal mechanisms signified the misuse of preventive detention as a substitute for regular criminal process.
Legal Standards and the Kerala Act
The Court carefully interpreted the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. Section 2(j) defines a ‘goonda’ in relation to threats to public order, while Section 2(o) defines a ‘known goonda’ based on prior complaints or convictions. Section 3 allows preventive detention, but only in narrowly tailored circumstances.
The detenu’s prior cases did not, in the Court’s view, cross the constitutional threshold for invoking Section 3.
“Given the extraordinary nature of the power of preventive detention, no reasons are assigned by the detaining authority, as to why and how the actions of the detenu warrant the exercise of such an exceptional power.”
Judgement Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the detention order dated 20 June 2024 and the Kerala High Court’s judgment of 4 September 2024 were unsustainable in law. It directed that both be set aside.
“The circumstances pointed out in the order 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.”
Conclusion
This judgement is a strong reaffirmation of constitutional liberties in the face of executive overreach. For legal professionals, it signals the Court’s rigorous standard for authorising preventive detention:
The State must demonstrate a real threat to public order, not mere violations of criminal law.
Detention orders must be supported by procedural fairness and factual precision.
Ordinary remedies like bail cancellation must be pursued before resorting to exceptional statutes.
In a time where preventive detention is increasingly used as a law-and-order tool, this judgement restores the delicate balance between individual liberty and public interest.
Kommentare