VILASINI RAMACHANDRAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The mother of the detenu, detained as per Ext.P1 order dated 23.10.2020, is before this Court challenging the detention. He was arrested on 27.10.2020 and the order of approval at Ext.P3 was dated 10.11.2020, within the 12 days as provided under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [for brevity 'KAA(P)A'], excluding Sundays. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board on 12.11.2020 and the Advisory Board confirmed the order on 24.12.2020.

(2.) Sri. Renjith B. Marar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a challenge against the KAA(P)A that it is in direct conflict with what has been provided under Section 3 of the National Security Act and, hence, the Act passed by the State Legislature is unconstitutional on the ground of repugnancy, being violative of Article 254 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Sri.K.A.Anas, learned Government Pleader, would, on the other hand, argue that KAP(P)A was enacted under Entry 3 of List III and the National Security Act deals with the security of the Nation while KAA(P)A deals with maintenance of public order. There is no question of repugnancy in the State having legislated KAA(P)A for the maintenance of public order, for which there is no Central legislation as of now. Reliance is also placed on A.K. Roy v. Union of India and Anr. [(1982) 1 SCC 272 = 1982 KHC 39 5]. It is pointed out on behalf of the State that the detenu had been under preventive detention earlier also, the challenge against which was dismissed by this Court. The detenu, after release, was involved in five crimes, shown at Sl.Nos.6 to 10 in Ext.P1 order. It is pointed out that the latest crime dated 11.10.2020 though initiated by the Police Officers; was initiated in their personal capacity for having threatened them and attacked with lethal weapons as also causing interference to their official duties when they were in the process of arresting one another criminal. Such complaints registered by Police Officers would not be excluded under Section 2(p)(iii) as has been held in Joicy v. State of Kerala [2018 (1) KHC 37 (DB)]. Further, it is pointed out that on the basis of the crime registered on 12.07.2020 (Sl.No.9), there was a proceeding initiated by the Sponsoring Authority dated 08.09.2020. It was when the said report was under consideration that the subsequent crime was noticed and the Sponsoring Authority again made a report on that basis on 17.10.2020. It is argued that the representation before the Advisory Board was subsequent to its approval. Representations were made to the Advisory Board and the Government on the same day, and the Government had considered the same and rejected it. The cited decisions are with respect to instances where representations were made either to the Government or the Advisory Board and not both. It is urged that there is no ground to interfere with the detention order.