Safiya Malik

The Kerala High Court has setaside the preventive detention order issued against an individual classified as a 'known rowdy' under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAA(P) Act), citing procedural lapses and non-compliance with statutory safeguards. The court ordered the immediate release of the detainee, who had been held in the Central Prison, Viyyur.

The writ petition was filed by Radha T.P., the mother of the detainee, Priyesh T.P., challenging the legality of a detention order dated 30.11.2024, issued under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act. The detention order was confirmed by the Government on 11.02.2025, following the recommendation of the Advisory Board, and mandated the detainee’s custody for six months.

The District Police Chief, Kannur City, had submitted a proposal on 15.10.2024, requesting the initiation of preventive detention proceedings, citing the detainee’s classification as a ‘known rowdy’ under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. The decision was based on the detainee’s involvement in four criminal cases, including Crime No.501/2024 of Dharmadom Police Station, registered on 07.09.2024 for alleged offenses under Section 354, 354(a)(1)(i) of IPC, Sections 74, 75(1)(i), 126(2), and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and Sections 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w 9(m), 9(p), and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act. The alleged offenses spanned from 01.01.2024 to 04.09.2024.

The detainee was arrested in connection with this case on 09.09.2024 and released on bail on 17.10.2024. The detention order was passed while he was still in judicial custody.

The petitioner contended that the detainee was being targeted unfairly and that there was no fresh act committed after the bail was granted. The representation submitted before the government and the Advisory Board seeking revocation of the detention order went unanswered.

The court examined whether the detaining authority had adhered to the procedural safeguards mandated by law. The petitioner contended that the detainee had not been provided with copies of critical documents, including the sponsoring authority’s report dated 15.10.2024 and an additional report dated 30.11.2024, which were referenced in the detention order.

The Kerala High Court noted, “Only when the copies of the relied upon relevant documents are served on the detenu, he would get an opportunity to file an effective representation before the Government as well as the Advisory Board.”

The court further observed that non-supply of these crucial documents directly impacted the detainee’s right to challenge the order. The Government Pleader conceded that the detainee was served only with the report of the Station House Officer (SHO), rather than the sponsoring authority’s reports, which formed the basis of the detention order.

The court also examined the statutory mandate under Section 7 of the KAA(P) Act, which requires the detaining authority to provide the detainee with a copy of the detention order and the grounds for detention, along with the relevant supporting documents.

The court noted that, in preventive detention matters, procedural compliance is of utmost importance. It recorded that "Preventive detention being an extraordinary measure, compliance with procedural safeguards assumes paramount importance. Any deviation from statutory mandates vitiates the order of detention."

The court examined the records to ascertain whether the detaining authority had properly recorded its subjective satisfaction while passing the order. It found that the detention order was based on repetitive reasoning without any fresh application of mind.

Further, the court stated, "The detaining authority has to demonstrate a real and proximate apprehension of future prejudicial activities based on substantial material. A mere reference to past cases, without any substantive reasons to believe that the detainee will engage in further criminal activities, does not suffice."

It was noted that there was a delay in executing the detention order, raising doubts about the immediacy and necessity of the preventive measure. The court observed that "if a detention order is not executed promptly and the detenu has remained at large without any further adverse activity, the need for detention itself is negated."

Given the procedural lapses, the Kerala High Court ruled that the detention order was vitiated and directed the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, Thrissur, to release the detainee forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case.

The court instructed the Registry to immediately communicate the order to the concerned prison authorities to ensure compliance without delay.

Case Title: Radha T.P. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(Crl.) No. 34 of 2025
Bench: Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian

[Read/Download order]