[KAAPA] Police's Failure To Use Available Technology To Expedite Process Undermines Personal Liberty Of Accused In Preventive Detention Cases: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court observed that the State Police uses an 'Integrated Core Policing System' that enables them to collect information about offenders promptly and efficiently without delay. The Court thus stated that with the technological advancements, the government cannot justify the delay in issuing the detention order by claiming that they spent time gathering case details.The Court was considering whether the government could satisfactorily explain the delay of six months from the last prejudicial activity to the passing of the order of detention. The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G Girish observed that authorities justify their failure to utilize technology to expedite the legal process since it undermines the personal liberty of the detenu.“The failure of the police department to leverage the available technology to expedite the process and instead offer weak excuses for the delay undermine the principles of personal liberty that are to be scrupulously adhered to before venturing to preventively detain a citizen. Such explanations are not only unsatisfactory but also incompatible with the duty to protect an individual's right to timely and just legal processes.” BackgroundThe Habeas Corpus petition was filed by the wife of the detenu who was detained under a detention order issued on April 22, 2024, under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. As per the facts, crime was registered for the last prejudicial activity on October 16, 2023. The detention order was executed on May 01 and was approved on May 15, 2024. The detenu submitted representations to both the Advisory Board and the State Government on May 07, 2024. The State Government confirmed the detention order on July 11, 2024 based on the Advisory Board's recommendation. The petitioner submitted that there is a six-month delay in issuing a detention order from the last prejudicial activity. Additionally, the petitioner noted that although representations were submitted on May 7, they were only considered when the detention order was confirmed, after a delay of two months.On the other hand, the public prosecutor submitted that the detenu was involved in more than 50 crimes. It was submitted that time was required to collect details as the crimes were all spread out in four districts,13 Police Stations limits and the proceedings were pending before 9 Criminal Courts. It was stated that time was required to gather details and determine the status of all pending cases. FindingsThe Court referred to Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra (1981) to state that it is mandatory for authorities to satisfactorily explain the delay in issuing the detention order. The Court observed that the State police has technologically advanced means to collect and track information about offenders. It stated that the authorities cannot state that the delay was caused due to their inability to make use of technological advancements. The Court said, “This justification is unacceptable, particularly in light of the fact that the Kerala Police Department has implemented an integrated core policing system, known as 'iCoPS,' to replace the existing Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS). With this advanced technology, the police have the capability to quickly and efficiently access all relevant information about an offender. Given these technological advancements, the respondents' claim that they had to spend much time to collect the necessary details is untenable.” The Court went on to state personal liberty of an individual can only be curtailed under strict constitutional restrictions. The Court also stated that there is a delay in considering the representations submitted by the detenu by referring to Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. As such, the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the continued detention of the detenu, if his detention is otherwise not required in any other case. Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates M.H.Hanis, P.M.Jinimol, T.N.Lekshmi Shankar, Nancy Mol P., Anandhu P.C., Neethu.G.Nadh, Ciya E.J.Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor K A AnasCase Number: WP(CRL.) NO. 511 OF 2024Case Title: Suneera T v State of Kerala Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 553Click here to Read/Download Order

[KAAPA] Police's Failure To Use Available Technology To Expedite Process Undermines Personal Liberty Of Accused In Preventive Detention Cases: Kerala HC

Tellmy Jolly

Tags