W.P. (Crl.) No. 435 of 2010. Case: Susi Vs State of Kerala and Ors.. High Court of Kerala (India)

Case NumberW.P. (Crl.) No. 435 of 2010
CounselFor Appellant: C. Rajendran, Adv. And For Respondents: P. Raveendra Babu, Government Pleader
JudgesR. Basant and K. Surendra Mohan, JJ.
IssueKerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 - Sections 2, 3, 3(1), 3(2), 3(3) and 10(4); Maintenance of Internal Security Act - Section 8; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) - Section 107, 117 and 151; Constitution of India - Article 21; Maintenance of Internal Security Ordinance, 1971
CitationILR 2011 (1) Kerala 773
Judgement DateJanuary 21, 2011
CourtHigh Court of Kerala (India)

Judgment:

R. Basant, J.

  1. Is the pendency of security proceedings against a detenu under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure a relevant circumstance to which mind of the detaining authority must be applied before ordering preventive detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA')?

    Does the blissful ignorance of the pendency of such proceedings and the total omission/failure on the part of the detaining authority to apply his mind to that aspect vitiate the order of preventive detention?

    Does the conduct of the sponsoring authority of totally withholding/suppressing such information from the detaining authority vitiate and justify the invalidation of the order of preventive detention?

    These questions arise for consideration in this writ petition.

  2. Fundamental facts are not disputed. The Petitioner concededly falls within the definition of known rowdy in Section 2(p) of the KAAPA. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chavara submitted Ext.P-4 report dated 19-5-2010 to the third Respondent, the Superintendent of Police suggesting the invocation of the KAAPA against the alleged detenu, Jojo, S/o. John. The third Respondent, the Superintendent of Police on receipt of Ext.P-4 submitted Ext.P-3 report dated 28-5-2010 under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA to the second Respondent, i.e., the District Magistrate, Kollam. The District Magistrate, Kollam on receipt of Ext.P-3 report dated 28-5-2010 proceeded to pass Ext.P-1 order of preventive detention dated 11-6-2010. The second Respondent also passed Ext.P-2 grounds of detention dated 11-6-2010. The detenu who is the son of the Petitioner herein was accordingly taken into custody and detained with effect from 18-10-2010. The order of detention was approved by the Government under Section 3(3) of KAAPA. Later, the order was confirmed by the Government under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA. The detenu will have to remain in custody till 17-4-2010 as per the order passed under Section 10(4).

  3. It will be apposite straightway to note that five cases are relied on by the authorities to categorise the detenu as a known rowdy. They are:

    (1) Crime No. 75 of 2008 of Sakthikulangara Police Station about an incident which took place on 22-2-2008.

    (2) Crime No. 248 of 2008 of Sakthikulangara Police Station about an incident which took place on 16-6-2008.

    (3) Crime No. 443 of 2008 of Sakthikulangara Police Station about an incident which took place on 9-11-2008.

    (4) Crime No. 390 of 2009 of Sakthikulangara Police Station about an incident which took place on 15-9-2009.

    (5) Crime No. 281 of 2010 of Sakthikulangara Police Station about an incident which took place on 26-3-2010.

  4. As no serious contention is raised before us that the detenu will not fall within the definition of known rowdy under Section 2(p) of the KAAPA, we are not proceeding to advert in detail to the said five cases.

  5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in detail.

  6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised several contentions to assail the impugned order. In the nature of the contentions raised, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to advert to all the contentions raised. Suffice it to say that the main and important grounds of challenge are as follows:

    (1) There has been no proper, real and effective application of mind by the detaining authority to the relevant facts before passing the order of preventive detention. The fact that security proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been initiated against the detenu under Ext.P-18 FIR and Ext.P-19 report was not adverted to by the detaining authority before taking the decision to order preventive detention.

    (2) The sponsoring authority is guilty of suppression/withholding of the relevant and vital fact that security proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had already been initiated against the detenu in the report under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA.

  7. It will be apposite at the very outset to advert the scheme of the KAAPA. The Kerala Legislature in its commitment to the freedom and liberty of the individual and in its anxiety to ensure that the powers of preventive detention are not misused or unjustifiably exploited by persons in authority has devised a clever scheme under the KAAPA. A proposed detenu must first of all satisfy the definition of known goonda or known rowdy. A perusal of the definition of known goonda and known rowdy under Sections 2(o) and 2(p) of the KAAPA clearly reveals that what is required is not a subjective but an objective satisfaction.

  8. Having entertained the initial threshold objective satisfaction the detaining authority must further consider whether the known goonda or known rowdy deserves to be preventively detained with a "view to prevent him from committing any anti-social activities". This latter satisfaction has been described to be a subjective satisfaction. Mere subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not sufficient. It must be preceded by the objective satisfaction as to whether the proposed detenu is a known goonda or a known rowdy.

  9. Such satisfactions are to be entertained by the detaining authority. Under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA such satisfaction cannot be entertained by the detaining authority in any manner that he chooses. The satisfaction must be on information received by the detaining authority from a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. In short, the Superintendent of Police (sponsoring authority) has to make information available to the detaining authority in a report submitted by him to the detaining authority under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA. What we intend to note is that the legislative scheme lays emphasis on the responsibility of the only specified sponsor-the police officer above the rank of a Superintendent of Police.

  10. It has always been held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not justiciable. Adequacy of material to induce the subjective satisfaction cannot be gone into by the courts. That is the satisfaction to be entertained by the executive authority. In as much as the subjective satisfaction is not justiciable, the jurisdiction of the superior constitutional courts in judicial review is extremely limited. But this is not to say that courts exercising the power of judicial review have no effective function to perform. It has to be insisted that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT