Dhanya M vs State of Kerala case gained attention as it involved the controversial preventive detention of a moneylender under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act which raised serious constitutional questions about misuse of executive powers, vague bail violation allegations and the thin line between public order and law and order. For a deeper understanding of important judicial decisions explore more Recent Judgements

Dhanya M vs State of Kerala: Introduction

Dhanya M vs State of Kerala case addressed the legality of preventive detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The case involved the detention of Rajesh who was a registered moneylender, on the grounds of being a "notorious goonda" and a threat to public order. The Supreme Court examined the procedural safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution as well as the distinction between public order and law and order.

Download Dhanya M vs State of Kerala PDF

The case at hand revolves around the preventive detention of Rajesh, a lender running a finance firm in Kerala under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The detention was ordered on grounds of him being a “notorious goonda” and a threat to public order based on several criminal cases involving alleged illegal money lending and related offences. The Appellant challenged this detention. The following are the brief facts of the case of Dhanya M vs State of Kerala -

Background of the Case

The appeal arose from the final judgment dated 4th September 2024 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The High Court upheld the preventive detention order issued by the District Magistrate of Palakkad under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 .

Detention Order

The detenu, Rajesh, is the proprietor of a registered lending firm named ‘Rithika Finance’. On 20th June 2024, the District Magistrate issued an order of detention based on Recommendation No. 54/Camp/2024-P-KAA(P)A dated 29th May 2024, from the Palakkad District Police Chief. It was alleged that Rajesh was a ‘notorious goonda’ and posed a threat to public order.

Criminal Cases Cited for Detention

The following four criminal cases were considered to justify the preventive detention:

• Crime No. 17/2020: Offences: Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and Sections 3, 9(1)(a) of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012
• Crime No. 220/2022: Offences: Section 3 r/w Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and Section 9(a)(b) r/w Section 3 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act
• Crime No. 221/2022: Offences: Sections 294(b), 506(I) of Indian Penal Code; violations under both the Kerala Money Lenders Act and the Exorbitant Interest Act
• Crime No. 401/2024: Offences: Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 IPC; Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act; Section 4 of the Exorbitant Interest Act; Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Proceedings Before the High Court

Following the detention, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Kerala and also sought a writ of Habeas Corpus against the alleged illegal detention.

Findings of the High Court

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the detention with the following key observations:

• Nature of Preventive Detention: The detaining authority is not required to evaluate the possibility of conviction or acquittal in the pending cases.
• Judicial Review Limitation: In writ jurisdiction, the High Court does not function as an appellate authority over administrative or executive decisions made on existing material.
• Procedural Compliance: The preventive detention order complied with all statutory safeguards and due process requirements.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant (Rajesh's wife) has now approached the Supreme Court. She argued that the detenu was already granted bail in all the cases and was in full compliance with court-mandated bail conditions. The appeal challenges the validity and necessity of continued preventive detention.

Dhanya M vs State of Kerala: Issues Addressed

The following questions were addressed in Dhanya M vs State of Kerala -

• Whether the preventive detention of the detenu was legally justified under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007?

The central issue was whether the detention order met the statutory and constitutional safeguards for preventive detention, particularly in the absence of a clear threat to public order.

• Whether the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' was correctly applied by the detaining authority?

The Court in Dhanya M vs State of Kerala examined if the acts attributed to the detenu had the wider societal impact necessary to justify preventive detention as opposed to being isolated criminal incidents.

• Whether preventive detention can be justified solely on the ground of alleged bail condition violations without first seeking cancellation of bail through due process?

Another issue in Dhanya M vs State of Kerala was whether the State could rely on vague allegations of bail violations to justify preventive detention without having pursued the appropriate legal remedy of seeking bail cancellation.

• Whether procedural safeguards under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution were complied with by the detaining authority?

The Court in Dhanya M vs State of Kerala scrutinized whether the procedural requirements such as furnishing the grounds of detention and observing the limits on detention period were followed and if the detention order could withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Dhanya M vs State of Kerala: Legal Provisions

Article 21 and Article 22 of Indian Constitution played a significant role in Dhanya M vs State of Kerala. The following is the analysis of these provisions:

Article 21 of Indian Constitution: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 of Indian Constitution deals with protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Article 22 of Indian Constitution: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

Article 22 deals with the protection against detention and arrest in certain cases. The following are the objectives of the Article 22-

• Prevent arbitrary arrest and detention
• Ensure individuals are informed of the grounds for arrest
• Protect the right to legal representation
• Prevent prolonged detention without trial
• Ensure fair treatment during custody
• Provide checks on state power

Dhanya M vs State of Kerala: Judgment and Impact

In Dhanya M vs State of Kerala, the Supreme Court on 6th June 2025 first acknowledged the main issue: whether the preventive detention of the detenu, Rajesh, was valid under law. Referring to constitutional provisions, it highlighted that preventive detention is a drastic and exceptional measure allowed under Article 22(3)(b) and must be exercised sparingly. The Supreme Court cited Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland and reiterated that such detention bypasses ordinary criminal procedure and must meet high legal thresholds.

Detaining Authority Failed to Show Disturbance to Public Order

Acknowledged the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, especially Section 2(j), Section 2(o) and Section 3, the Court in Dhanya M vs State of Kerala concluded that the detenu's actions though criminal did not rise to the level of disturbing “public order”. The distinction between “law and order” and “public order” was drawn using judgments like SK. Nazneen v. State of Telangana and Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana which held that acts impacting only individuals do not justify preventive detention.

Bail Violations Cannot Justify Preventive Detention

The Court in Dhanya M vs State of Kerala took note of the detaining authority's claim that the detenu violated bail conditions. However, the State had not filed any formal bail cancellation applications in the relevant criminal cases nor were specific violations detailed. It referred to Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar and held that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for bail cancellation under regular criminal law.

Detention Order and High Court Judgment Set Aside

Considering the lack of evidence showing any real threat to public order, and the improper invocation of preventive detention, the Supreme Court in Dhanya M vs State of Kerala held that the detention order was not legally sustainable. It therefore:

• Quashed the detention order dated 20th June, 2024
• Set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 4th September, 2024.

The Court in Dhanya M vs State of Kerala allowed the appeal and explained that the State may still pursue bail cancellation independently, if warranted, without being influenced by this judgment.

Conclusion

In Dhanya M vs State of Kerala, the Supreme Court on 6th June 2025 reinforced the principle that preventive detention must be used sparingly and only in cases where there is a genuine threat to public order. The Apex Court held that mere criminal conduct or alleged bail violations without proper steps like bail cancellation, cannot justify such detention. By setting aside the detention order and the judgment of the High Court, the Court reaffirmed the constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22