Context :
In Dhanya M vs State of Kerala & Others, the Supreme Court struck down the preventive detention of the petitioner under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The SC emphasized that preventive detention cannot be used to bypass or override bail orders granted by a court.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
- The Court ruled that law and order issues cannot be escalated into matters of public order just to justify preventive detention.
- It cited previous judgments like SK Nazneen v. State of Telangana (2023) and Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana (2024) to clarify that the impact on the general public must be significant to invoke preventive detention.
- The preventive detention order in this case was held to be arbitrary and unconstitutional, as it attempted to circumvent the normal criminal justice process.
About Preventive Detention in India
- Constitutional Basis: Article 22(3) allows preventive detention for national security and public order, but provides safeguards like:
- Detention without trial only up to 3 months unless approved by an Advisory Board.
- Detainee must be informed of the grounds and allowed to make a representation.
- Supreme Court’s View: Preventive detention is an exception to Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) and must be applied sparingly and with strict justification.
Landmark Judgments on Preventive Detention
- Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011): Preventive detention should not be casually invoked; it must be rare.
- Vijay Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar (1984): It should not replace ordinary criminal law processes like bail revocation.
- Icchu Devi v. Union of India (1980): The burden of proof is on the State to justify detention.
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Upheld the constitutional validity of preventive detention laws but noted that such power must be cautiously exercised.
Why This Matters
- Preventive detention has increasingly been used as a shortcut by executive authorities to neutralize individuals already out on bail.
- The SC’s judgment is a reminder that constitutional safeguards cannot be bypassed under the guise of maintaining public order.
- The case reinforces judicial oversight over executive action and preserves the liberty of individuals unless a clear and present danger to public safety is established.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper 2: Governance
Constitution, and Judiciary; Raises important questions about fundamental rights vs state power; Highlights the role of judicial review in safeguarding liberty.
GS Paper 3: Internal Security
Reinforces the legal boundaries around preventive detention; Aligns with debates on the balance between security and rights.
Possible Mains Question
Q. Preventive detention is a necessary tool for internal security but risks undermining constitutional liberties if misused. Examine in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dhanya M vs State of Kerala (2025).
