Caught twice with Drugs? HC says 'You're a Goonda', Quantity and Intent be damned

A Five judge Bench of the Kerala High Court has ruled that repeat offenders caught possessing even small quantities of narcotic drugs can be classified as "goondas" under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA), opening the door to preventive detention for habitual drug offenders regardless of whether commercial intent can be established, a ruling that overturns a 2024 Full Bench precedent and reshapes how Kerala's anti-goonda law is applied on the ground.

The question before the Bench, comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice P Gopinath, Justice A Badharudeen, Justice MB Snehalatha, and Justice Jobin Sebastian, was deceptively narrow but legally combustible: does mere possession of a "small quantity" of a prohibited narcotic substance, without any proof of intent to sell or distribute, satisfy the definition of "drug offender" under Section 2(i) of KAAPA, thereby allowing the State to detain that person as a goonda? Kerala's courts had been pulling in opposite directions for over a decade. A 2014 ruling in Ashraf v. Inspector General of Police had answered yes, any possession was sufficient.

That position held until 2023, when Luciya Francis v. State of Kerala drew a sharp distinction between threats to "law and order" and threats to "public order," concluding that a personal-use possessor posed no danger to the latter. In 2024, a Full Bench in Suhana v. State of Kerala went further, reading the word "stocks" in KAAPA's definition alongside terms like "sells" and "distributes," and holding that only commercially motivated possession could trigger the Act's application. That conflict necessitated the present reference to a Larger Bench.

The Bench dismantled the Suhana reasoning from its foundation, holding that the statutory definition of "goonda" under KAAPA is explicitly inclusive, not exhaustive, and therefore extends well beyond persons whose conduct directly threatens public order. The Court found that treating "stocking" as distinct from "possession" was semantically untenable, since one necessarily presupposes the other. More pointedly, it determined that a person repeatedly found in possession of narcotics generates a demonstrable climate of insecurity among law-abiding citizens, which itself constitutes "anti-social activity" as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act.

Examining the legislative debates behind KAAPA, the Bench concluded that the legislature had intended every NDPS violation to fall within the Act's net, especially for repeat offenders. As the Court put it, "Each such offence is and must be treated as a serious one, being an offence against the society at large, since it corrodes persons of their worthiness and capacity and causes burden on their near ones and family, if not on the community as a whole." 

The Bench accordingly held that the Suhana conclusion, requiring concurrent satisfaction of both limbs of the goonda definition, cannot be legally sustained.
 

Case Title: Aaliya Ashraf Vs. State Of Kerala and Ors. 

Case No.: ICR (WP(CRL.)) No. 20 of 2025

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gopinath P., Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen, Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Snehalatha, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jobin Sebastian

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. M.H.Hanis, Adv. P.M.Jinimol, Adv. T.N.Lekshmi Shankar, Adv. Ria Elizabeth T.J., Adv. Nancy Mol P., Adv. Anandhu P.C., Adv. Neethu.G.Nadh, Adv. Sinisha Joshy, Adv. Ann Mary Ansel

Advocate for the Respondent: ADGP Grashious Kuriakose, PP C.K.Suresh, Adv. S.Prasun, Adv. Smt.Chithra P.George, Adv. Vivek A.V, Adv. Mathews P.George, PP K.A.Anas

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com