Basant, J.

Should the constitutional commitment to human rights, personal liberty and freedom of the individual persuade this Court to read the expression "in the presence of witnesses" in the proviso to Section 2(o)(ii) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the KAAPA) as "in the presence of non-police witnesses"? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this Writ petition.

2. To the crucially vital and relevant facts first. The petitioner's husband Suresh @ Sura is detained under Section 3 of the KAAPA. He is alleged to be a known goonda. He is involved in as many as six crimes. They all relate to offences punishable under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Sand Act). The vital details about those six crimes are given below.

3. According to the respondents the detenu falls within the definition of a known goonda under Section 2(o)(ii) of the KAAPA. Report dated 2.3.2009 was submitted by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent by order of detention dated 17.3.2009 (Exhibit P1) directed preventive detention of the said Suresh under Section 3 TABLE (2) of the KAAPA. Approval was later granted by the Government under Section 3 (3) of the KAAPA. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board recommended continued detention. The Government has subsequently confirmed the order of detention.

4. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that a writ of habeas corpus may be issued to produce her husband Suresh before this Court and to set him free, after setting aside the order of detention passed.

5. What are the reasons? Various reasons are urged. But, we deem it necessary that only the first contention need be considered in detail.

6. The contention is that the alleged detenu is not a known goonda falling within the sweep of the definition in Section 2(o) of the KAAPA. All the six crimes are initiated on the basis of reports of seizure submitted by police officials shown in column (III) of the statement above. They all relate to seizure of sand by such seizing police officials. All those seizures are on the basis of mahazars prepared by the seizing police officials and admittedly and significantly, in all the six cases, the mahazars are attested only by witnesses who are police officials shown in column (IV) of the statement above. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged seizure made in the presence of witnesses who are all police officials cannot help the respondents to contend that the detenu is a known goonda under the proviso to Section 2(o)(ii). This in short is the contention raised.

7. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions contends that the seizures have been effected in the presence of the witnesses and sand under the Kerala Sand Act is the article seized in all these cases. The learned ADGP contends that the language of the proviso does not at all permit this Court to introduce or add words to qualify the expression "witnesses" appearing in the proviso. It is impermissible for this Court to add the adjective "non police" in front of the word "witnesses" in the proviso.

Therefore, the challenge raised on this ground must be rejected, contends the learned ADGP.

8. We find the question to be legally interesting and practically vital. We deem it necessary that the definition of a known goonda under Section 2(o) must be considered and understood in the background of the constitutional provisions and safeguards, in the light of the scheme under the KAAPA and the concerns which prompted the legislature to enact a provision like Section 2(o) in the KAAPA. We deem it further necessary to understand the legislative history of this definition in the light of the Ordinance which preceded the present Statute.

9. Human rights, freedom and personal liberty are the fundamental planks on which the