Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has held that the distinction between "public order" and "law and order" lies in the societal impact of the act, while refusing to quash a preventive detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAA(P)A). The petition filed by the detenu’s mother, as a writ of habeas corpus, sought to challenge the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Kannur, on June 22, 2024, which had been confirmed by the government.

The court, presided by the Division Bench of Justice G. Girish and Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, affirmed that the preventive detention of the petitioner’s son was justified as his criminal activities affected public order. The court noted : “true distinction between the areas of “public order” and “law and order” lies not in the nature of quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society,” emphasising that the detenu was accused of multiple crimes, including assault and violent behaviour. The court ruled that the individual's actions posed a threat to public order, upholding the order issued by the District Magistrate, Kannur, under Section 3(1) KAA(P)A.

The petition was filed by Sujatha K, contesting the detention of her son, labeled a "known rowdy" by the District Police Chief, Kannur. The detenu had five pending criminal cases between 2020 and 2024, involving charges of assault, criminal intimidation, and attempted murder. These cases, were still under various stages of trial or investigation. The preventive detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, citing the necessity to maintain public order due to the detenu’s repeated involvement in criminal activities.

The petitioner raised several objections, arguing that many of the offences cited were merely violations of law and order, not disturbances to public order, which would make preventive detention under KAA(P)A unwarranted. One of the cases involved a police officer as the complainant, and the petitioner contended that this was improperly included as grounds for detention. It was further argued that one of the crimes was minor and bailable, while another was still under investigation, with no substantial evidence linking her son. Lastly, it was claimed that her representations were ignored by the government, and there was no proper communication regarding their rejection.

On the other hand, the State, represented by Senior Government Pleader K.A. Anaz, argued that the detenu's activities had crossed the threshold from law and order to public order. They maintained that his violent conduct had disrupted the lives of the public and posed a grave threat to societal peace. The prosecution cited relevant case law to assert that even individual offences, when committed repeatedly and with increasing severity, could amount to a public order concern. The State also contended that the detenu’s representations were considered and rejected appropriately.

The court noted that while there is a thin line between issues of law and order and public order, the key distinction is the impact on society. The detenu’s criminal activities, involving repeated violent assaults and disruption of public peace, justified preventive detention under KAAPA. The court held that the petitioner’s son’s actions went beyond isolated law and order issues, causing a ripple effect on the broader public.

The court also rejected the petitioner’s contention that one of the crimes cited by the authorities was a bailable offence of a trivial nature and should therefore be disregarded. The court clarified that this argument was inconsistent with the intent of the KAA(P)A. It emphasised that an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), dealing with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon, cannot be considered trivial. Moreover, crimes falling under the category outlined in Clause (t) of Section 2 of the KAA(P)A cannot be dismissed as insignificant, as doing so would undermine the purpose of the legislation. Therefore, the court found the petitioner’s argument to be without merit.

Regarding the petitioner’s claim of non-consideration of her representations, the Court accepted the government’s clarification that the detenu’s request for release had been duly rejected and communicated.

Citing established precedents, including Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, the Court highlighted the legal distinction between "law and order" and "public order." The court pointed out that repeated acts of criminality can escalate from law and order concerns to issues affecting the public at large, thereby justifying preventive detention.

The court observed : “the Detaining Authority is seen to have rightly analysed the relevant records and arrived at the finding that the detenu had committed the crime which is attributed as his last prejudicial activity. Therefore, the challenge in the above regard is also devoid of merit.”

Finding no procedural violations, the Court upheld the detention, concluding that the detenu posed a grave threat to public order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

 

Cause Title: Sujatha K v State of Kerala [WP(CRL.) NO. 738 OF 2024]