LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/dhanya-m-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-20250606/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Dhanya M vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
6 June 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 2897 of 2025
Result
Allowed
Bench
Sanjay Karol, Manmohan
Citation
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 354 : 2025 INSC 809
Acts & Sections
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)… Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant… IPC SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 Constitution
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 7 S.C.R. 354 : 2025 INSC 809
Issue for consideration
Whether the preventive detention of the detenu is in accordance with law.
Headnote

Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 – ss.3, 2(j), (o) – Order of detention u/s.3(1), if sustainable: Held: No – s.2(j) states that a person who indulges in activities “harmful to maintenance of public order” is covered by the Act – In the present case, the facts and circumstances do not fall under the category of a public order situation – The detention order does not state any reason as to how the actions of the detenu were against the public order of the State – Given the extraordinary nature of the power of preventive detention, no reasons were assigned by the detaining authority, as to why and how the actions of the detenu warranted the exercise of such an exceptional power – State should move for cancellation of bail of the detenu, instead of placing him under the law of preventive detention – Exercise of power u/s.3 was not justified in law – Order of detention and the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the said order passed by the District Magistrate u/s.3(1), are set aside – Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 – Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 – Penal Code, 1860 – SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. [Paras 17, 19, 21-23]

Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 – ss.2(j), (o), 3, 7, 12 – Scheme and object of the Act – Discussed. [Paras 12-15]

Constitution of India – Art.22 – Preventive detention – Extraordinary power, exercise of:

Held: Preventive detention is an extraordinary power that must be used sparingly – It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature – The power of preventive detention is an exception to Art.21 and, therefore, must be applied as an exception to the main rule and only in rare cases. [Para 9]

Keywords: Preventive detention · Detenu · Order of detention · Detention order · “harmful to maintenance of public order” · Public order situation · ‘goonda’ · ‘notorious goonda’ · ‘known goonda’ · District Magistrate · Detaining authority · Cancellation of bail of the detenu · Writ of Habeas Corpus · State of Kerala · Anti-social activities · Illegal detention · Power of preventive detention · Extraordinary power · Detention order set aside

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Leave Granted. 2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 4th September, 2024 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP(CRL)No.874/2024, whereby the order dated 20th June, 2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Palakkad, directing the husband of the appellant, Rajesh1 to be kept under preventive detention in prison in terms of Section 3 of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 20072 was affirmed. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the detenu is running a registered lending firm in the name
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →