VINIJA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Should the constitutional commitment to human rights, personal liberty and freedom of the individual persuade this Court to read the expression "in the presence of witnesses" in the proviso to Section 2(o)(ii) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the KAAPA) as "in the presence of non-police witnesses"? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this Writ petition.

(2.) To the crucially vital and relevant facts first. The petitioner's husband Suresh @ Sura is detained under Section 3 of the KAAPA. He is alleged to be a known goonda. He is involved in as many as six crimes. They all relate to offences punishable under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Sand Act). The vital details about those six crimes are given below: <FRM>NP_360_ILR(KER)3_2009.htm</FRM>

(3.) According to the respondents the detenu falls within the definition of a known goonda under Section 2(o)(ii) of the KAAPA. Report dated 2-3-2009 was submitted by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent by order of detention dated 17-3-2009 (ExhibitP-1) directed preventive detention of the said Suresh under Section 3(2) of the KAAPA. Approval was later granted by the Government under Section 3 (3) of the KAAPA. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board recommended continued detention. The Government has subsequently confirmed the order of detention.