In its landmark ruling, which was handed down on June 6, 2025, in the matter of Dhanya M vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2897 of 2025), the Supreme Court of India has once again reaffirmed the restricted and exceptional character of the powers that are associated with preventative detention.
The Court overturned the decision of the Kerala High Court to uphold a detention order against Rajesh, a registered money lender who was being detained in accordance with the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAA(P)A).
It is imperative that the decision serve as a reminder of the delicate balance that exists between individual liberty and state security.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Details on the situation
The District Magistrate of Palakkad arrested Rajesh on June 20, 2024, in accordance with Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. This is the first time that the case has been brought up.
There were many criminal charges that led to the incarceration of the individual. These cases included breaches of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, the Indian Penal Code, and the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
Rajesh was referred to as a “notorious goonda” by the police because his actions were supposedly seen to constitute a threat to public order. His wife, Dhanya M, challenged the imprisonment by submitting a writ petition.
She said that Rajesh was on bail in all of the cases that were still ongoing and that he was conforming to the terms that were set by the court. Following the decision of the Kerala High Court to uphold the detention, an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court.
Issues of the Law and the Approach of the Court
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution provide constitutional safeguards, and the Supreme Court’s examination focused on determining whether or not the preventative detention order was legally enforceable and in accordance with those rights.
The Supreme Court emphasized that preventative detention is a draconian authority that is only permitted under stringent constitutional and legislative restrictions.
Instead than serving as a replacement for criminal prosecution or as a reaction to perceived inadequacies in the bail system, its purpose is to prevent predicted criminal activities that endanger public order. It is not meant to function as a substitute for criminal prosecution.
‘Public Order’ vs ‘Law and Order’: An Alternative Interpretation
The distinction between law and order and public order was a significant aspect of the decision that was ultimately considered. By referring to previous cases such as SK Nazneen v. State of Telangana and Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, the Supreme Court of India made it clear that behaviors that disrupt the normal flow of communal life are considered to be actions that violate public order.
On the other hand, transgressions that solely harm certain persons, even if they are criminal in nature, are considered to be problems with law and order.
Despite the fact that the actions that were ascribed to Rajesh may be considered unlawful, the Supreme Court made the observation that they did not fit the criteria for disrupting public order.
Given that the authorities in charge of holding him did not provide an explanation as to how his activities posed a harm to society as a whole, the detention order is legally invalid.
Errors in Procedure and the Implementation of Bail Conditions
The inappropriate use of preventative detention in the context of bail was another key topic that was discussed.
It was brought to the attention of the court that the State had not submitted any motions to terminate Rajesh’s bail in the instances that were relevant. Rather than that, it attempted to avoid the criminal justice system by using preventative detention as a means of doing so.
The judgment referenced Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, emphasizing that preventive detention should not be employed merely because it is difficult to obtain bail cancellation.
In addition to unlawfully restricting personal liberty, this kind of application undermines the procedural rights that the criminal law provides.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the detention order that had been issued against Rajesh did not have a solid legal foundation or a procedural reason. The initial detention order as well as the High Court’s confirmation of it were both overturned as a result of this.
It was also brought to the attention of the State that any issues about breaches of bail should be handled via the normal legal processes, and not through exceptional detention powers.
Regarding the Importance of the Decision
By issuing this decision, the Supreme Court has shown once again that it is dedicated to protecting fundamental liberties.
The message that preventive detention must continue to be an exception rather than a convenient alternative to criminal prosecution or bail cancellation is sent to the authorities of the state in a clear and convincing manner.
In addition to making a significant contribution to the developing body of jurisprudence concerning the limitations of state authority in accordance with preventive detention statutes, the verdict also serves as a vital precedent for future instances in which individual freedoms are challenged.
