Preventive detention in India is regulated by both central laws and state laws, each guided by district provisions of the Constitution of India. Here’s a detailed breakdown of preventive detention under both categories:

 

 

1. Constitutional Provisions : Article 22 of the Constitution of India lays sown the framework for preventive detention laws. It ensures the rights of detained individuals, including being informed of the reasons for detention, the right to legal counsel, and the right to challenge the detention.
2. Central Laws : The Parliament of India has enacted several central laws pertaining to preventive detention to address diverse concerns such as national security, public order and economic offences. Notable among these are the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) (1971), National Security Act (NSA) (1980), Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act (PBMMSEC) (1980), Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) (1974), the unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) (1967) and the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.

 

1. Constitutional Provisions : While the power to enact preventive detention laws rests with the Parliament under the concurrent list of the Constitution, states also have the authority to pass laws concerning public order and police powers. However, such laws must not contravene central laws or constitutional provisions. 
2. State Laws : States in India enact preventive detention laws tailored to address local concerns within their jurisdictions. These laws may mirror central legislation or target specific state-related issues regarding public order, security, and internal disturbances. For instance, the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 is a state-specific law aimed at curbing anti-social activities and preserving public order in Kerala.

In conclusion, preventive detention in India is governed by district provisions of the Constitution, with both central and state laws serving complementary roles. While central laws address national-level concerns, state laws cater to regional specifics. Nevertheless, all preventive detention laws must adhere to constructional safeguards to safeguard the rights of detained individuals.

 

 

he Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (Kerala Act 34 of 2007), provides for preventive detention measures to tackle anti-social activities within the state. It includes provisions for detaining individuals known as "known rowdies" or "known goondas" to prevent them from continuing their disruptive activities. Here's a detailed explanation of the preventive detention procedure under the Kerala Antisocial Activities Prevention Act, 2007: The term known Goonda is defined as follows :-

 

(i) “known goonda” means a goonda who had been, for acts done within the previous seven years as calculated from the date of the order imposing any restriction or detention under this Act :-

 

(ii) found guilty, by a competent Court or authority at least one for an offence within the meaning of the term ‘goonda’ as defined in clause (i) of Section 2 ; or

 

(iii) found in any investigation or enquiry by a competent police officer, authority or competent Court on complaints initiated by persons other than police officers, in two separate instances not forming part of the same transaction, to have committed any act within the meaning of the term ‘goonda’ as defined in clause (j) of Section 2 :

Provided that an offence in respect of which a report was filed by a Police Officer before a lawful authority consequent to the seizure, in the presence of witnesses, of alcohol, spirit, counterfeit notes, sand, forest produce, articles violating copyright, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, or currency involved in hawala racketeering may be included for consideration though the report had resulted from an action initiated by a police officer.

 

Explanation – An instance of an offence involving a person, which satisfies the conditions specified in the definition of known rowdy referred to in clause (p) of Section 2 can also be taken in to consideration as an instance, along with other other cases, for deciding whether the person is a known goonda or not.

Thus only a ‘goonda’ can become a ‘known goonda’. ‘Goonda’ is defined in section 2 (j) as follows :

 

“goonda means a person who indulges in any anti-social activity or promotes or abets any illegal activity which are harmful for the maintenance of the public order directly or indirectly and includes a bootlegger, a counterfeiter, a depredator of environment, a digital data and copy right pirate, a drug offender, an hawala racketeer, an hired ruffian, rowdy, an immoral traffic offender, a loan shark ( a money chain offender) or a property grabber.”

 

The term known rowdy is defined as follows :-

“known rowdy" means any person, who had been, by reason of acts done within the previous seven years as calculated from the date of the order imposing any restriction or detention under this Act, -

 

(i) made guilty, by a competent court at least once for an offence of the nature under item (i) of clause (t) of section 2 or any offence notified as such under the said clause : or

 

(ii) made guilty, by a competent court at least twice for any offence of the nature mentioned under item (ii) of clause (t) of section 2 or any offence of the nature mentioned under item (ii) of clause (t) of section 2 or any offence notified as such under the said clause; or

 

(iii) found on investigation or enquiry by a competent police officer or other authority, on complaints initiated by persons other than police officers, in three separate instances not forming part of the same transaction to have committed any offence mentioned in clause (t) of section 2

 

1. Identification of Known Rowdies/Goondas : Law enforcement agencies identify individuals who are deemed to be habitual offenders or involved in anti-social activities based on their criminal records, history of involvement in unlawful activities, or intelligence reports. A police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police is the Sponsoring authority as per Section 3(1) of the Act 34 of 2007.
2. Grounds for Detention : The authorities gather evidence and establish grounds for the detention of these individuals under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007. These grounds may include their involvement in activities that threaten public order, disturb peace and tranquillity, promote enmity between different groups, or are otherwise prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
3. Initiation of Detention Process : A proposal or dossier detailing the grounds for detention is submitted to the appropriate authority designated under the Act. This authority could be the District Magistrate or any other empowered officer as specified in the Act. The District Magistrate having jurisdiction is competent to exercise powers under Section 3(1) of the Act as the detaining authority.
4. Review and Approval : The proposal is reviewed by the Advisory Board to ensure that it meets the legal requirements for preventive detention under the Act. If satisfied with the grounds presented , the authority approves the detention order and forwards its advice to the Government for further action.
5. Detention Order : Upon approval, the Government will issue a detention order is issued against the known rowdy or known goonda, specifying the reasons for their detention and the period of detention authorized under the Act. The detained individual is informed of the grounds of detention and their rights under the Act.
6. Duration of Detention : The Act specifies the six months maximum duration of detention permissible under its provisions. After the expiry of this period, the detenu must be released unless fresh grounds for detention are established. After release if the detenu commits one more offence as defined under the Act, the detenu can be again detained and the period for second detention is one year.
7. Judicial Review : The detained individual has the right to challenge their detention before the appropriate judicial authority. They can file a habeas corpus petition or challenge against the detention order before the High court to ensure that their rights are upheld.
8. Periodic Review : The detention order is subject to periodic review to ensure its legality and necessity. The authorities must periodically assess whether the grounds for detention continue to exist and justify the continued detention of the individual. Under Section 13(1) of the Act a detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified by the Government.

In summary, the preventive detention procedure under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007, follows a structured process aimed at detaining known goondas or known rowdies for anti-social activities to prevent further disruption of public order and safety within the state. It includes safeguards to protect the rights of the detained individuals and ensures that detention orders are based on valid grounds and legal procedures.

 

 

Under Section 15(1)(a) and (b) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, movement restriction orders can be issued to individuals deemed to be involved in anti-social activities. The procedure for issuing such orders is detailed as follows :

 

1. Identification of Individuals : The Law enforcement agencies identify individuals suspected of being involved in anti-social activities based on their criminal records, history of involvement in unlawful activities, or intelligence reports. The District Magistrate or a Police officer of and above the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police having jurisdiction, if satisfied on information received in respect of a ‘known goonda’ or ‘known rowdy’ after having given him an opportunity to be heard pass an order restricting the movement of the persons concerned.
2. Grounds for Issuing Movement Restriction Order : The authorities gather evidence and establish grounds for issuing movement restriction orders against these individuals under Section 15(1)(a) and (b) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act, 2007. These grounds may include their involvement in activities that threaten public order, disturb peace and tranquillity, promote enmity between different groups, or are otherwise prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
3. Initiation of Proceedings : A proposal or dossier detailing the grounds for issuing movement restriction orders is submitted to the authorised officer designated under the Act. This authority could be the District Magistrate or a Police officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police.
4. Review and Approval : The proposal is reviewed by the designated authority to ensure that it meets the legal requirements for issuing movement restriction orders under Section 15(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. If satisfied with the grounds presented, the authority approves the issuance of the orders restricting movement for a period not exceeding one year.
5. Issuance of Movement Restriction Orders : Upon approval, movement restriction orders are issued against the identified individuals, specifying the nature and extent of the restrictions imposed on their movement. These restrictions may include curfew hours, limitations on travel to certain areas, or report his movement within the state or other conditions aimed at preventing further involvement in anti-social activities.
6. Notification to the Concerned Individuals : The individuals subject to movement restriction orders are notified of the restrictions imposed on their movement and the reasons for such orders. They are informed of their rights under the Act and the procedure for challenging the orders, if necessary, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order before the Advisory Board.
7. Appeal before the Advisory Board : Any person aggrieved by the restriction/ externment order issued under Section 15(1) may represent before the Board within 15 days from the date of service of the order and the board on receipt of such representation, consider the same and after hearing the aggrieved, shall within 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, annul, amend or confirm the order either in full or part.
8. Periodic Review : Movement restriction orders are subject to periodic review to assess their necessity and effectiveness in maintaining public order and safety. The authorities must periodically revaluate the grounds for issuing such orders and adjust or lift the restrictions accordingly.