Preventive detention must be justified by public order considerations and cannot be applied merely based on law and order issues; strict compliance with constitutional safeguards is essential.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Karol, J.

Leave Granted.

2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 4^th September, 2024 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP(CRL)No.874/2024, whereby the order dated 20^th June, 2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Palakkad, directing the husband of the appellant, Rajesh, Hereinafter “detenue” to be kept under preventive detention in prison in terms of Section 3 of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 , Hereinafter “the Act” 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 of ‘Rithika Finance’. On 20^th June, 2024, the District Magistrate, Palakkad, issued an order of detention under Section 3 (1) of the Act, in furtherance of Recommendation No.54/Camp/2024-P- KAA(P)A dated 29^th May, 2024 by the Palakkad District Police Head. It was stated therein that the detenu is a ‘notorious goonda’ of the district and is a threat to the society at large. The following cases were considered for such declaration:

i. Crime No.17/2020 under Section 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 , and Section 3 , 9(1)(a) of Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 , at the Kasaba Police Station.

ii.Crime No.220/2022 under Section 3 read with Section 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 , and Section 9 (a)(b) read with Section 3 of Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 , at the Town South Police Station.

iii.Crime No.221/2022 under Section 294 (b), 506 (I) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , and Section 3 read with Section 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 , and Section 9 (a)(b) read with Section 3 of Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 .

iv.Crime No.401/2024 under Sections 3 41, 323, 324, 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 ; Section 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 , and Section 3 (2), (va), 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 .

4. Consequently, the detenu was taken into custody. Aggrieved by the order of detention dated 20^th June, 2024, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala assailing the order of detention and praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus to Respondent No.1 - the State of Kerala, against the illegal detention of her husband, Rajesh.

5. Vide the impugned Judgment and Order, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the challenge laid to the order of detention with the following findings:

a. Whether the cases against the detenu will result in an acquittal, is not an exercise that can be carried out by the detaining authority while passing the order of preventive detention.

b. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court does not sit in an appeal against decisions taken by the authorities on the basis of the materials placed before it.

c.Procedural safeguards have been complied with in the impugned action.

6. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant has preferred an appeal before this Court. The significant point of challenge taken by the appellant is that in all cases against the detenu, he is on bail and is complying with the conditions laid down by the Court.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the written submissions filed. Vide order dated 10^th December 2024, the detenu was released by this Court, since the maximum period of detention under the Act was completed.

8. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is - whether the preventive detention of the detenu is in accordance with law.

9. It is well settled that 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(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature. The power of preventive detention finds reco