Non-Supply Of Legible Documents Vitiates Preventive Detention | Kerala HC Frees Detenu Booked As Known Rowdy | Court Says Right To Representation Becomes Illusory Without Readable Grounds
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar has quashed a preventive detention order issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The court directed the immediate release of the detenu, holding that procedural lapses in furnishing legible documents and the delayed disposal of his representation undermined his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Concluding that non-compliance with Section 7(2) of the KAA(P) Act caused serious prejudice to the detenu, the Bench observed that the supply of unreadable and illegible documents deprived the detenu of clarity regarding the grounds of his detention. The judgment also recorded that the representations submitted by the detenu and his mother were not meaningfully addressed, which the Court found to be a violation of constitutional and statutory safeguards.
In directing the release of the detenu, the court stated that the procedural requirements under preventive detention laws must be strictly followed and non-adherence to such statutory mandates vitiates the entire detention process.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, Midhun P.P @ Kuttappi, who challenged the preventive detention order dated 04.02.2025 issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 by the District Magistrate of Kannur. The detention was later approved by the Government of Kerala vide Order No. DCKNR/16026/2024-SSI dated 04.02.2025.
According to the records, the District Police Chief, Kannur City had submitted a proposal on 26.12.2024 for the initiation of preventive detention proceedings under the KAA(P) Act. The proposal categorized the detenu as a "known rowdy" under Section 2p(iii) of the Act. Based on this proposal, the detaining authority considered four criminal cases pending against the detenu and issued the detention order.
The four cases are:
- Crime No. 257/2020 of Kannavam Police Station, dated 08.09.2020, involving offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 120, 120-B, 341, 323, 506(ii), 302, 201 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act. The case is pending trial.
- Crime No. 1018/2023 of Panoor Police Station, dated 08.10.2023, involving offences under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. This case is also pending trial.
- Crime No. 533/2024 of Panoor Police Station, dated 05.07.2024, under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). This case is pending trial.
- Crime No. 1009/2024 of Panoor Police Station, dated 04.12.2024, under Sections 79, 296, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS. This case is under investigation. The detenu was arrested on 07.12.2024 and released on bail the same day.
The petitioner argued that the detention order was issued in a mechanical manner, without proper application of mind and in violation of the procedural safeguards under the KAA(P) Act. The counsel stated a delay of two months between the alleged last prejudicial activity and the issuance of the detention order, and a further delay of eight days in executing the order. The petitioner also contended that the documents supplied to the detenu were illegible and unreadable, thereby prejudicing his right to make an effective representation.
It was submitted that representations were submitted before the Government and the Advisory Board on 28.02.2025. These were evidenced by Exhibits P3 and P4. Despite stating the issue of illegibility of documents, no action was taken to remedy the situation. The representations were only considered after the confirmation of the detention order, with no explanation provided regarding the supply of unreadable documents.
The learned Public Prosecutor, Sri K.A. Anas, submitted that the detention order was issued after following due procedure and that all relevant records and grounds of detention were furnished to the detenu. He further submitted that the detenu acknowledged receipt of legible documents and was informed of his right to file a representation before the Government and Advisory Board.
However, the Court noted that the petitioner had produced the copies of documents served on the detenu and found several pages—specifically page numbers 14 to 19—illegible and unreadable.
The Division Bench recorded that "Section 7(2) mandates that the grounds of detention, with all relevant documents and materials, based on which the detention has been found necessary, shall be furnished to the detenu, as soon as possible, at any rate within five days." The Court stated that this requirement is not an empty formality and must be complied with strictly.
It observed that "only when the legible and readable copies are furnished to the detenu, he could make an effective representation before the Advisory Board and the Government." The Court added, "It is the bounden duty of the detaining authority to ensure that copies furnished to the detenu shall be legible and readable."
Citing Pramod Singla v. Union of India, the Court stated, "where illegible documents have been supplied to the detenu, a grave prejudice is caused to the detenu in availing his right to send a representation to the relevant authorities, because the detenu, while submitting his representation, does not have clarity on the grounds of his or her detention."
Regarding the delay in passing the detention order, the Court noted the last prejudicial activity occurred on 04.12.2024 and the order was passed on 04.02.2025. The proposal for detention had been submitted on 26.12.2024. The Court recorded that "in the facts and circumstances, the delay cannot be said to be inordinate snapping the live link."
On the issue of representations, the Bench held that "the grievance of the detenu was not redressed and he was not furnished with a readable copy of the illegible documents." It further stated, "instead, it was only after the confirmation of the order that the representation was taken up and the same was disposed of without addressing the grievances raised there."
Referring to State of Manipur v. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan @ Anand, the Court reiterated, "the detenu is entitled to obtain information relating to the grounds of detention. When the grounds of detention are served on the detenu, he is entitled to ask for copies of the statements and documents referred to in the grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation."
The Court also quoted Ayya v. State of U.P. stating, "laws that provide for preventive detention posit that an individual's conduct prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or to the security of State provides grounds for a satisfaction for a reasonable prognostication of a possible future manifestations of similar propensities."
The Court held: "On a careful consideration of the materials on record, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed." It observed that the "non-serving of legible copy of the documents and the inordinate delay in meaningfully considering and disposing the representation will vitiate the order of detention."
Accordingly, the Bench directed: "This Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order of detention is set aside." It further directed: "The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, Thrissur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Midhun P.P @ Kuttappi. forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case."
The Registry was also instructed to "communicate the order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, Thrissur, forthwith."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Shri. M.H. Hanis, Smt. T.N. Lekshmi Shankar, Smt. Nancy Mol P., Shri. Anandhu P.C., Smt. Neethu G. Nadh, Smt. Ria Elizabeth T.J., Shri. Sahad M. Hanis
For the Respondents: Sri. K.A. Anas, Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Manjusha K.P v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:48477
Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 440 of 2025
Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar
