IMPORTANT POINTS:
Person's fundamental right to privacy and personal liberty, the action of the police authorities in detaining and interrogating the petitioner and thereafter searching his residence, without following the procedure mandated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, was wholly unjustified- It may be that the police entertained a suspicion and the action taken was to a good end, but it is fundamental in our law that the means which are adopted to this end are lawful means. A good end does not justify a bad means more so when the means adopted are such that violate the personal freedom and privacy of individuals.

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

Liberty is often defined as the state of being free within Society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behaviour or political views. The framers of our Constitution believed that certain freedoms are essential to enjoy the fruits of liberty and that the State shall not be permitted to trample upon these freedoms save for the pursuit of objectives that are in the larger interest of Society. As a matter of fact, the worth of a State lies in the worth of the individuals composing it and a truly free State is one where the collective liberties of its citizens are duly recognised and respected.

2. The appellant herein is the State of Kerala, aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.5.2015 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.24902/2014. The learned Single Judge, through a passionate defence of the principle of personal liberty, held that the State had, by detaining the writ petitioner in police custody on a suspicion of his being a Maoist - a suspicion that was not based on any valid material, violated his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the learned Judge directed the State Government to compensate the writ petitioner in an amount of Rs.1 lakh, over and in addition to paying him costs of the litigation quantified @ Rs.10,000/-.

3. In his writ petition, it was the case of the petitioner that he was residing along with his life partner in Wayanad District where they were engaged in organic farming. He was also a researcher of 'Yoga Sastra' (Science of Yoga) and conducted camps and classes occasionally for teaching Yoga. On 20.5.2014, the petitioner's friend Sachu, who was a former Human Resource Executive with India Vision news channel, and was currently working in a reputed company in a Gulf country, along with his wife Smt.Razia, who was working as a Yoga Teacher in an International School at Kakkanad, came to the petitioner's house on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-8-V 4755. At about 4.30 p.m. on the same day, when the petitioner was travelling on the said motor cycle to Korom Junction to meet another of his friends, two police constables, dressed in plain clothes, blocked his way and took the key of his bike without any explanation and arrested him. When he asked for the reasons for his arrest, the police officials told him that a very large group of police men were looking for the motorcycle, and the two persons who were travelling thereon in the morning. Though the petitioner informed the Police that those travelers were at his home and that they were free to meet them, the Police constables ignored his offer and took him to Korom town. From there he was forcefully taken into the police jeep by the 8th respondent and six members from the thunderbolt force who were armed with advanced automatic rifles. The event was witnessed by hundreds of local people and had severely tarnished his reputation. The 8th respondent also prevented him from making a phone call to inform his family about his arrest, and prevented him from seeking any legal assistance. In the police jeep the Sub Inspector apparently told the petitioner that they were looking for the riders of the motorcycle since they were suspected to be Maoists. Again the petitioner informed the 8th respondent that the said two persons were at his home and requested the said respondent to take him there so as to check the veracity of his statement, but the said plea was also ignored. The motor cycle was also seized. Later, at the Police station, the petitioner states that he was strip-searched in front of other persons and then subjected to an interrogation. He was then taken to his house, accompanied by Commandos belonging to the Thunderbolt force, and a search was conducted at the house when some articles such as laptops and mobile phones were seized. The police personnel reportedly left his house only by about 00.30 hours the next morning.

4. Impugning t