With Advanced Technology, Police Capable Of Quickly Accessing All Info About Offender: Kerala HC Quashes Preventive Detention Order Passed With 6 Months Delay

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G Girish held, “In the present case, the delay has been attributed to the time required to gather records from various police stations and jurisdictional courts. This justification is unacceptable, particularly in light of the fact that the Kerala Police Department has implemented an integrated core policing system, known as ‘iCoPS,’ to replace the existing Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS). With this advanced technology, the police have the capability to quickly and efficiently access all relevant information about an offender. Given these technological advancements, the respondents' claim that they had to spend much time to collect the necessary details is untenable. The failure of the police department to leverage the available technology to expedite the process and instead offer weak excuses for the delay undermine the principles of personal liberty that are to be scrupulously adhered to before venturing to preventively detain a citizen. Such explanations are not only unsatisfactory but also incompatible with the duty to protect an individual's right to timely and just legal processes.”

Advocate M.H. Hanis appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate General, Additional Director General of Prosecution and Special Public Prosecutor KA Anas appeared for the Respondents.

The writ petition was filed seeking the issuance of the Habeas Corpus writ and challenged the detention order passed by the Second Respondent i.e. the District Collector and District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAAP Act’).

The brief facts of the case are that the police furnished a report before the second respondent recommending the initiation of proceedings under the KAAP Act against the detenu to interdict him from continuing to indulge in anti-social activities. Based on his criminal antecedents it was urged that the detenu is a fit person to be classified as a ‘known rowdy’ under Section 2(p)(iii) of the Act. The details of the involvement of the detenu in about 23 crimes committed from the year 2018 till 2023 were furnished before the detaining authority. Based on the report, the DM passed the impugned order.

The Court considered the main issue whether there was any proximity in time to provide a rational nexus between the last prejudicial activity and the passing of the impugned order of detention, and also as to whether any reasonable or satisfactory explanation has been provided by the respondents for the delay.

“If the credible chain between the grounds of the alleged criminal activity and the purpose of detention gets snapped, then the order of detention cannot be sustained.”, the Court said.

The Court relied on the landmark judgment in Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra (1981 SC)and held that what is required by law is that the delay must be satisfactorily examined by the detaining authority. It said that the mere passage of time before issuing a detention order following an incident does not automatically invalidate the detention, as delays may sometimes be unavoidable and reasonable, however, the law mandates that any delay must be thoroughly and satisfactorily justified by the detaining authority.

“Applying the principles above, we have no doubt in our mind that the explanation offered by the respondents for the delay of about six months from the last prejudicial activity to the passing of the order of detention is not at all convincing and acceptable.”, the Court added.

Another issue concerning the timeline of the events, the Court observed that zealous insistence on compliance is made on the rules of procedure not necessarily because the detenu’s are paragons of virtues. It added that it is a civilizational finesse well recognized in a system wedded to the rule of law that before a person is deprived of his liberty under the jurisprudence of suspicion, procedural stipulations must be observed and complied to the hilt. In the case on hand, the Court said that the representation was considered by the Government only in July 2024, which can only be deemed as inordinate.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the detention of the detenu.

Cause Title: Suneera T v. The State of Kerala and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:64256)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates M.H. Hanis, P.M. Jinimol, T.N. Lekshmi Shankar, Nancy Mol P., Anandhu P.C., Neethu.G.Nadh and Ciya E.J.

Respondents: Advocate General, Additional Director General of Prosecution and Special Public Prosecutor KA Anas

Click here to read/download the Judgment