'Goonda' Under Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act Includes Drug Offender, Need Not Show 'Activities Harmful To Public Order': High Court

The petitioner's son is detained under the KAAPA Act on the finding that he is a 'drug offender' and would come under the ambit of definition of 'goonda' under Section 2(j) of the Act.

The Division Bench of Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian stated that for a drug offender to be regarded as goonda, it was not essential to prove that he was engaged in an activity that was harmful for the maintenance of public order.

Court stated, “in terms of the definition of “goonda”, a "drug offender" is also included in the definition of “goonda”. In other words, if a person satisfies the definition of “drug offender”, he would automatically become a “goonda”. As noted, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in order to hold a “drug offender” as a “goonda”, there should be materials to indicate that he has indulged in any activity which is harmful for the maintenance of the public order. This argument is advanced placing reliance on the part of the definition of “goonda” namely “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”. There is absolutely no basis for this argument.”

The Petitioner is the mother who has filed Habeas Corpus writ for the release of her son who is detained under the KAAPA Act. The Petitioner's son is detained by stating that he has committed number of acts and would be regarded as a 'known goonda' under the Act.

It is to be noted that seven cases are registered under the NDPS Act against the petitioner's son, for consumption of ganja, possession of MDMA etc.

The Petitioner submitted that consumption of ganja and mere possession of narcotic substance would not make her son a drug offender. It was further argued that even if the petitioner's son is qualified as drug offender, that would not automatically make him a goonda by relying upon the decision in Suhana v State of Kerala (2024).

It was stated that for classifying a person as goonda, he must be involved in any activity which is harmful for the maintenance of the public order directly or indirectly. It was therefore submitted that mere consumption or possession of narcotic substance cannot be regarded as an activity harmful for maintenance of public order.

The Court stated that as per Suhana (supra), mere consumption of ganja would not make the petitioner' son within the definition of drug offender.

The Court found that out of seven cases, four cases were only registered against the petitioner's for consumption of ganja and in other cases, he is found with MDMA for sale in public road.

It said, “The said allegations, according to us, would certainly denote commercial activities in drugs in contravention of the NDPS Act, especially since the contraband carried was not a small quantity…. Needless to say, the contention of the petitioner that his son does not satisfy the definition of "drug-offender" is only to be rejected and we do so.”

Relying upon Section 2 (j) of the Act, the Court stated that goonda is a person who is engaged 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.

The Court stated that that the phrase 'harmful for the maintenance of public order' applies only to the second category, that is 'promotes or abets any illegal activity' and not to 'anti-social activity'. The Court further clarified that a drug offender could still be defined as a 'goonda' under the Act even though their actions may not be found as harmful for maintenance of public order.

Court explained, “ The word “or” occurring in between the expression “anti-social activity” and the expression “promotes or abets any illegal activity” would make it clear that the qualification, namely, “harmful for the maintenance of public order” would apply to only the last expression, namely, “promotes or abets any illegal activity” and not to the expression “anti-social activity”, which is distinct and separate.”

The Court found that the petitioner's son was detained on the subjective satisfaction of the authorised officer to prevent him from indulging in any anti- social activity.

As such, the petition was dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates T.Madhu, C.R.Saradamani, Renjish S. Menon, Aiswarya Jayapal, Aleena Jose Karthik, Krishna M.

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader K A Anas

Case Number: WP(CRL.) NO. 1189 OF 2024

Case Title: Aleema A V State Of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 814

Click here to Read/Download Order