Preventive detention requires real consideration of the detenu's representation; a mechanical rejection can invalidate continued detention.

Cases ending in acquittal or on a guilty plea before the detention proposal could not be treated as current material for classifying a person as a known goonda or known rowdy under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and a prosecution under Section 160 IPC was outside the statutory basis for that classification. The remaining pending cases were still capable of satisfying the statutory definitions, subject to the separate requirement that the alleged conduct affect public order. The Government's rejection of the detenu's representation was held invalid because it was generic and mechanical and failed to deal with the crucial objection that two relied-on cases had already concluded, so the continued preventive detention was vitiated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cases that had already terminated, and a prosecution under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, could be reckoned for the purpose of classifying the detenu as a known goonda or known rowdy under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007; (ii) Whether the detenu's representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 7(2) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 received real and proper consideration by the Government.

Issue (i): Whether cases that had already terminated, and a prosecution under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, could be reckoned for the purpose of classifying the detenu as a known goonda or known rowdy under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.

Analysis: Cases which had ended in acquittal or on acceptance of plea of guilty before the detention proposal could not be treated as pending or current material for detention. A prosecution under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was also held to be outside the basis for treating a person as a rowdy or known rowdy under the statutory definitions. At the same time, the remaining pending cases were found sufficient to satisfy the statutory threshold for the expressions "rowdy", "goonda", and "known goonda", subject to the separate inquiry whether the alleged acts posed a threat to public order for the purpose of preventive detention.

Conclusion: The challenge on this issue succeeded in part, but it did not by itself invalidate the detention.

Issue (ii): Whether the detenu's representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 7(2) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 received real and proper consideration by the Government.

Analysis: The representation had to be considered with real, proper, unbiased and zealous scrutiny, though a detailed speaking order was not necessary. The rejection order was found to be generic and mechanical, and it did not deal with the crucial factual objection that two of the relied upon cases had already concluded before the detention proposal was made. That omission showed that the representation was not considered in the manner required by law.

Conclusion: The Government did not give the detenu's representation the real and proper consideration required by law.

Final Conclusion: The continued preventive detention was invalidated because the statutory and constitutional safeguard requiring genuine consideration of the detenu's representation was not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the detenu's representation must receive real and proper consideration, and a rejection that is generic or mechanical, especially one ignoring a crucial factual objection, vitiates the continued detention.

---