The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticized the misuse of preventive detention laws to keep accused individuals in jail after they’ve secured bail. Learn how this landmark ruling upholds constitutional rights and reinforces due legal process.
Supreme Court Highlights Abuse of Preventive Detention
On June 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a strong rebuke to state authorities for misusing preventive detention laws to keep individuals imprisoned even after being granted bail. In the case Dhanya M v. State of Kerala, the Court emphasized that preventive detention is a rare constitutional exception—not a backdoor method to override judicial bail.
Background of the Case: Detention After Bail
The case involved Rajesh, a registered moneylender operating under ‘Rithika Finance’ in Kerala, who was labeled a “goonda” under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. Despite securing bail in multiple FIRs related to loan sharking and assault, he was detained by an order from the District Magistrate of Palakkad on June 20, 2024.
His wife, Dhanya M., challenged this detention through a Habeas Corpus petition, which was initially dismissed by the Kerala High Court. The matter was then escalated to the Supreme Court, which overturned both the detention order and the High Court ruling.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
Preventive Detention Is a Constitutional Exception
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan clarified that preventive detention is meant for exceptional circumstances involving threats to public order, not as a means to extend incarceration after bail.
“Preventive detention is a severe measure… authorized only under Article 22 of the Constitution,” the Court stated.
Detention Must Be Based on Concrete Evidence
The Court noted that the Kerala government failed to demonstrate how Rajesh’s actions disturbed public order as opposed to mere law-and-order issues affecting only a few individuals.
“The act alone does not determine its own gravity… Its effect on society may vary greatly,” the bench stated.
Legal Precedents Cited in the Judgment
To support its ruling, the Court referenced several landmark judgments:
Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar – Emphasized caution in detaining someone already released on bail.
Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland – Highlighted strict conditions for preventive detention.
SK Nazneen v. State of Telangana and Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana – Distinguished between public order and individual crimes.
Court Calls Out Lack of Bail Cancellation Efforts
One of the most critical points was the State’s failure to seek cancellation of Rajesh’s bail in any of the four FIRs. The Supreme Court observed that no legal steps had been taken to revoke his bail, nor had any violations of bail conditions been specified.
“Preventive detention laws should not be used solely to restrict freedom when an individual is already granted bail by a competent court,” the judgment concluded.
Final Verdict: Detention and High Court Ruling Overturned
The Supreme Court annulled both the preventive detention order and the Kerala High Court‘s earlier decision, reinforcing that constitutional safeguards must be respected even in cases involving multiple FIRs.
Conclusion: A Win for Constitutional Justice
This judgment serves as a critical reminder that preventive detention must be used sparingly and with due process. It reaffirms the principle that bail granted by courts cannot be bypassed through administrative orders unless backed by substantial evidence.
