SAILAJA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We commence by making reference to the celebrated observations of justice Frankfurter in the dissenting judgment in U.S. v. Rabmowitz (339 U.S. 56 [1950]) that;

(2.) Has mind been applied properly before passing the impugned orders of preventive detention under Sec. 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (for short 'the KAAPA') Do Sec. 2(t) offences (alone) justify the classification of a "rowdy' as a 'known goonda' under Sec. 2(o) of the KAAPA Is it essential that there must at least be one non 2(t) offence' also, alleged or proved before a 'rowdy' is reckoned as a known goonda' and his preventive detention ordered under Sec. 3 of the KAAPA How are the words "can also be taken into consideration as an instance along with the other cases" in the Explanation to Sec. 2(o) of the KAAPA to be understood and interpreted

(3.) These interesting questions arise for determination in these three writ petitions which, are taken up for consideration together. We have heard the learned counsel Sri, RajagopalanNair and Sri, Dileep P,Pillai appearing for the petitioners in these cases as also Sri, K,K, Ravindranath, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions, We are proceeding to dispose of these cases by this common judgment.