Preventive detention extraordinary power of state that must be used sparingly: SC
New Delhi, Preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly, said the Supreme Court as it set aside an order to detain a man indulging in money lending in Kerala.
A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said 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 in cases against him, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention.
"Therefore, the order of detention dated June 20, 2024, and the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam are hereby set aside. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed," the bench said in its order passed on Friday.
Noting that the power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution under Article 22, the bench said, "The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence, and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature."
The bench said the contention of the detaining authority that the detainee, Rajesh, who used to run a private financing company called 'Rithika Finance', was violating the conditions of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been considered for passing the order of detention.
It said that pertinently, no application has been filed by the respondent in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have not even been spelt out during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the Kerala High Court order, which affirmed the preventive detention order of the Palakkad district magistrate.
"Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained. 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.
"We clarify that if such an application for cancellation of the detainee's bail is made by the respondent - state, the same must be decided uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove," the bench noted.
It referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the state.
The bench said Section 2 of the state law defines 'goonda' as a person who indulges in activities that are harmful to the maintenance of public order, either directly or indirectly, and includes persons who are bootleggers, counterfeiters, drug offenders, and loan sharks, among others.
The bench also said that under Section 3 of the Act, the district magistrate so authorised or the government may pass an order directing detention of a "known goonda" to prevent commission of antisocial activities within the state of Kerala.
"Coming to the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act was not justified in law," the top court said, as it noted four cases lodged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, cited by the police for recommending preventive detention to the district magistrate.
The police stated that the detainee was a "notorious goonda" in the district and a threat to the society at large.
Aggrieved by the order of his detention dated June 20, 2024, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court assailing the order and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the state against the "illegal" detention of her husband.
The high court on September 4 last year affirmed the order of preventive detention. Aggrieved by the order, the detainee's wife moved the top court challenging the decision.
On December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was over.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
State Information Commission recommends cyberfraud cases to be brought under RTI purview
Ahmedabad: The State Information Commission has recommended to the state home department that cyberfraud cases be brought under the purview of the Right to Information Act. It suggests supplying details about cyber offences and investigations to complainants by making amendments in the notification. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now At present, the cybercrime cell refuses to share details about investigations and progress made in cyberfraud cases, citing that the cell functions under CID (Crime), which is exempted from the obligation of furnishing information under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act. Information Commissioner Nikhil Bhatt has suggested the state govt withdraw the investigation of cyberfraud cases from the exemption granted to CID (Crime) by making amendments in its gazette notification of Oct 25, 2005, under the provisions of Section 25(3)(j) of the Act. The commission further stated that the govt has granted exemption to the local crime branch and crime branch in rural and urban areas from RTI obligations. It has recommended the withdrawal of this exemption in connection with these agencies as well, as far as cybercrime complaints are concerned. It has sought a periodic report of progress in this direction if the home department agrees to do it. "If the amended notification is issued by the state govt as recommended by the commission, a copy of it shall be sent to the commission," the order reads. The commission's recommendation came after one Rakesh Prajapati, a complainant in a cyberfraud case, sought details under RTI provisions regarding progress in the investigation of his case. However, he was denied the information by the authorities on the grounds that the cybercrime cell functions under CID (Crime), which is exempted from RTI obligations. The commission said that innocent citizens lose their hard-earned savings in cyberfraud, and they file complaints with the Cybercrime Cell. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now They are eager to know when they will get their money back and what action has been taken on their complaints. Upon denial of such information, they feel dejected. "This commission firmly believes that information related to cyber offences registered with the Cybercrime Cell, which functions under CID (Crime) at present, should be shared with the victims of cyberfraud. " The commission further said that CID (Crime) probes sensitive cases and hence is exempted from RTI purview. However, cyberfrauds are less serious in nature and it is not a "core activity" of CID (Crime). Moreover, the Cybercrime Cell was not in existence when CID (Crime) was exempted from RTI obligations. "The commission does not agree with the decision of not sharing information related to cyberfrauds under the guise of secrecy or by taking the shield of exemption granted under Section 24 of the RTI Act," it said.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump travel ban shows ‘deep hostility' towards Iranians, Muslims, says Iran
Iran on Saturday lambasted US President Donald Trump's travel ban on countries, including Iran, and said that it showed "deep hostility" towards Iranians and Muslims. Iran's foreign ministry posted a statement on X quoting a senior official and said, "The decision to ban the entry of Iranian nationals - merely due to their religion and nationality - not only indicates the deep hostility of American decision-makers towards the Iranian people and Muslims but also violates... international law." Separately, Iran on Saturday slammed the new sanctions imposed by the United States targeting over 30 individuals and entities that Washington said are part of a "shadow banking" network linked to Tehran. It said that the network has laundered billions of dollars through the global financial system. "The new U.S. sanctions ..., are illegal and violate international law, and are further evidence of the deep and continuing hostility of the U.S. ruling regime towards the Iranian people," foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said in a statement, Reuters reported. Earlier on Wednesday, Trump issued a full-entry travel ban on nationals from 12 countries, including Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Meanwhile, partial restrictions will also be enforced on Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela, limiting immigrant and non-immigrant visas due to high overstay rates or insufficient collaboration between law enforcement. The travel ban was justified by the White House, which cited Taliban control in Afghanistan, Iran and Cuba's state-sponsored terrorism, and Haiti's influx of illegal migrants during the Biden regime. Additionally, countries like Chad (49.54% B1/B2 visa overstay rate) and Eritrea (55.43% F/M/J overstay rate) were flagged for disregarding US immigration laws. 'We will restore the travel ban, some people call it the Trump travel ban, and keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country that was upheld by the Supreme Court," Trump had said. The travel ban was also upheld by the Supreme Court which ruled that 'it is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority' and noted that it is 'expressly premised on legitimate purposes'.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Salwa Judum case: Legislative workaround and limits of contempt power
The doctrine of separation of powers must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy, the Supreme Court said in its May 15 order ruling that any law made by Parliament or state legislatures cannot be held to be in contempt of court. The decision by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma came while dismissing a 2012 contempt petition filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar and others against the Chhattisgarh government for enacting the Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, alleging the law violated an earlier SC order. The bench held that the law did not amount to contempt of the SC's 2011 landmark judgment that disbanded the state government-backed Salwa Judum, terming it unconstitutional. Salwa Judum was a government-backed militia formed in Chhattisgarh in 2005, which used armed tribal civilians to combat Maoist violence. The contempt plea claimed that the Chhattisgarh government failed to comply with the 2011 order to stop open backing of vigilante groups like the Salwa Judum, and instead went ahead and armed tribal youths in the fight against Maoists. It said there had been a clear contempt of the SC order when the state government passed the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, which legalised arming tribals in the form of Special Police Officers (SPOs) in the war against Maoists. The petitioners further submitted that instead of disarming SPOs, which was a key constituent of the SC's 2011 order, the Chhattisgarh government legalised the practice of arming them. They also argued that the victims of the Salwa Judum movement had not been adequately compensated. In the latest ruling of May 15, the Supreme Court said the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 does not constitute a contempt of court per se, and that the balance between sovereign functionaries must always be delicately maintained. 'Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court, the said enactment would have the force of law," the bench said. If any party wants that the legislation be struck down for being unconstitutional, the legal remedies would have to be presented before an appropriate constitutional court, the bench noted.
