Kerala High Court
Suni vs State Of Kerala on 17 July, 2026
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 1 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 781 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SUNI
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O.JAFFAR, KUNNUTHARA VEETTIL,
KAPPIL MEKKUMURI, KRISHNAPURAM,
KOLLAM, PIN - 690533
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
SHRI.MUHAMMAD A. P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691013
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 2 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KOLLAM RURAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670004
BY ADV.SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 17.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 3 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2026
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the detention
order No.DCKLM/291/2026-M-16 dated 12.02.2026 issued
against Shan, S/o. Jaffar under Section 3(1) of the Kerala
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for
brevity). Petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The said
detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide
Exhibit P2 order bearing GO(Rt) No.1381/2026/HOME dated
20.04.2026 whereby the detenu has been ordered to be
detained for a period of 1 year from the date of detention. The
present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the
respondents to produce the detenu as well as quash the
detention and confirmation orders produced as Exhibits P1
and P2 respectively.
2. After admitting the W.P. (Crl.) into file, this Court,
by order dated 22.05.2026, directed the learned Public
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 4 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
Prosecutor to file a statement. Pursuant thereto, the learned
Public Prosecutor filed a memo on 16.06.2026 along with the
statement of facts. Since it was deemed necessary to have a
closer scrutiny of the records and procedures undertaken by
the authorities leading to Exhibits P1 and P2 orders, we had
directed the learned Public Prosecutor to produce the relevant
documents and the opinion of the Advisory Committee in a
sealed envelope. Pursuant to the said direction, a sealed cover
has been produced containing the ‘Report and Opinion dated
08.04.2026 of the Advisory Board in R.C. No. 97/2026 which
concerns the detenu as well as the connected details of the
proceedings held by the Advisory Board.
3. Pleadings in the matter thus being complete, we
proceeded to hear the learned counsel Mr.M.H.Hanis,
Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Biju
Meenattoor, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that Exhibits P1 and P2 orders are illegal, arbitrary and
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 5 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
hence liable to be quashed. It is contended that the said
orders have been rendered in a mechanical fashion without
applying mind to the relevant aspects as disclosed from the
records. Non consideration of relevant materials and non
compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements under
the KAA(P) Act are also alleged by the learned counsel. It is
contended that Exhibit P1 detention order does not reveal
compliance with Section 3(3) of the KAA(P) Act whereby the
entire records ought to have been forthwith forwarded to the
Government and to the State Police Chief for detailed
verification. Non supply of legible copies of the documents
which had been relied on for rendering Exhibit P1 order is
also pointed out by the learned counsel contending that such
non supply of legible documents and all documents relied
upon have substantially prejudiced the interests of the
detenu. The delay in consideration of Exhibit P3
representation dated 14.03.2026 preferred by the petitioner
before the 1st respondent is termed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner as a violation of the constitutionally
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 6 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
guaranteed rights of the detenu and protected under Article
22 (5) of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the dictum
laid down in K.M.Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India [(1991) 1
SCC 476] and Golam Biswas v. Union of India and another
[2015 KHC 5588].
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there has been a delay of 45 days in
sponsoring of an absconding person. Further a delay of 3
months and 10 days in passing Exhibit P1 order and the date
of occurrence of the last prejudicial activity is also alleged.
According to the learned counsel, since no valid or tenable
explanation is forthcoming for the said allegedly inordinate
delay that had been occasioned from the part of the
authorities while rendering Exhibits P1 and P2 orders, the
said orders are legally unsustainable. It is further argued that
no satisfactory explanation has been offered for any of the
aforesaid delays and that such unexplained delay has
snapped the live and proximate link between the alleged
prejudicial activities and the order of detention, thereby
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 7 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
vitiating the detention proceedings.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
contends that in addition to the above delays, there has been
a delay of 15 days in executing Exhibit P1 order and in so far
as no proceedings under Section 6 had been initiated within
reasonable time it reveals that there was no immediate
necessity of detaining the detenu invoking the provisions of
the preventive detention laws. That the fate of the
representation preferred by the detenu before the 1st
respondent produced as Exhibit P4 was never considered,
had violated his constitutionally guaranteed rights is also
contended by the learned counsel. It is thus contended that
Exhibits P1 and P2 orders being violative of Articles 14, 21
and 22 of the Constitution of India are fit to be quashed.
Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of
this Court in Sneha Vijayan v. State of Kerala : (2025 KHC
OnLine 108).
7. The learned counsel also contended that several
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 8 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
documents relied upon by the detaining authority, including
First Information Statements, mahazars, witness statements
and recovery mahazars in various predicate crimes, were
supplied only in illegible form. It was argued that the supply
of illegible copies effectively deprived the detenu of his
constitutional right to make an effective representation
against the order of detention, thereby vitiating the entire
proceedings.
8. According to the learned counsel, if the order of
detention is not approved by the Government within twelve
working days from the date of detention, or if the order of
confirmation is not passed within three months from the date
of detention, the detenu becomes entitled to be released in
accordance with the constitutional mandate. It is further
submitted that Exhibit P1 does not mention the
constitutional time limits prescribed under Article 22(4) of the
Constitution of India. The omission to specify these
mandatory time limits in Exhibit P1, it was argued, renders
the detention order legally unsustainable. In support of the
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 9 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
said contention, reliance was placed on the decision in
Manju Nahar v. Union of India : [(1999) 4 SCC 116]. The
learned counsel for the petitioner thus seeks to quash
Exhibits P1 and P2 orders and to allow the W.P.(Crl) as
prayed for.
9. Per contra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor
stoutly refuted the contentions put forth by the counsel for
the petitioner and submitted that all statutory requirements
had been complied with while issuing Exhibits P1 and P2
orders. It is submitted that the petitioner’s son i.e., the
detenu is a “Known Rowdy” as defined under Section (p)(iii) of
the KAA(P) Act. He had been involved in 12 criminal cases
during the period from 2019 to 2025 and his activities were
prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and had
endangered the safety and peaceful life of the public
necessitating the authorities to initiate action as envisaged
under Section 3(1) (ii) of the KAA(P) Act. The learned Public
Prosecutor submits that 12 criminal cases in which the
detenu had been involved included offences punishable under
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 10 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
Sections 307, 323, 324, 341, 326, 294(b), 308, 147 and
506(ii) of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC as well as
under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The said 12 cases,
according to the learned Public prosecutor falls under the
provisions of Clause 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act and the detenu
comes under the ambit of Section 2(t) of the KAA(P) Act which
in turn are anti-social activities falling under Section 2(a) of
the Act.
10. It is submitted by the learned Public prosecutor
that the detenu had been subjected to three preventive
detention orders prior to the order impugned in this W.P.
(Crl.). Pursuant to the first detention order, the detenu was
arrested on 10th May, 2021. The said detention order was
subsequently revoked by the Government, following which he
was released. Under the second detention order, the detenu
was detained for a period of 6 months with effect from 25th
November,2023 and he was released on completion of the
period of detention. The third detention order was also
revoked by the Government. The records further reveal that a
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 11 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
Rowdy History Sheet was opened against the detenu on 1 st
January 2018 pursuant to Order No.04/GL/2018/KS of
Ochira Police Station. Proceedings under Section 107 of the
CrPC were also initiated against him and were pending
consideration before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam in
M.C. No.797/2024.
11. It is submitted that all the earlier preventive
measures did not deter the detenu from committing further
crimes and it was after examining carefully the case of the
detenu afresh with reference to the relevant records including
the opinion of the Advisory Board that the Government had
confirmed the detention under Section 10(4) of the KAA(P)
Act. The contention that there was no live and proximate link
between the last prejudicial act and the delay in issuance of
the detention order is denied.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted
that the Government approved the order of detention under
Section 3(3) of the KAA(P) Act within the prescribed time. It
was submitted that the petitioner, Smt.Suni, thereafter
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 12 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
preferred a representation dated 14.03.2026 before the
Government. Since the proposal had already been forwarded
to the Advisory Board, the Government, by letter No.
SSA1/101/2026-Home dated 17.03.2026, directed the
detaining authority to furnish legible copies of the relevant
documents to the detenu, if necessary, and also forwarded
the representation to the Advisory Board on the same day. It
was contended that, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Golam Biswas v. Union of India and
Another (supra), the Government could not have considered
the representation while the matter was pending before the
Advisory Board. It is further submitted that the Advisory
Board heard the detenu, his counsel, and the representatives
of the sponsoring and detaining authorities, and submitted
its report to the Government within the statutory period of
nine weeks from the date of detention. As per Report No. R.C.
No. 97/2026/KAA(P)A dated 08.04.2026, the Advisory Board
opined that there existed sufficient cause for the detention of
the detenu. Thereafter, the Government independently
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 13 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
considered the representation submitted on behalf of the
detenu along with the entire records and found no merit in
the contentions raised therein. Consequently, the
representation was rejected and the order of detention was
confirmed under Sections 10(4) and 12 of the Act by G.O.
(Rt.) No. 1381/2026/Home dated 20.04.2026, directing that
the detenu be detained for a period of one year from the date
of detention. The order of confirmation was communicated to
the detenu through the Superintendent of the Central Prison,
Viyyur. The rejection of the representation was also
communicated to the detenu by letter No. Home-
SSA1/101/2026-Home dated 22.04.2026 without any undue
delay.
13. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted
that all the 12 criminal cases registered against the detenu
were duly taken into consideration by the detaining authority
while issuing the order of detention. It was contended that
Exhibit P1 detention order sets out the grounds of detention
in detail and specifically records the impact of the detenu’s
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 14 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
activities on the maintenance of public order. According to
the learned Public Prosecutor, the materials placed before the
detaining authority clearly justify the subjective satisfaction
arrived at by it that the activities of the detenu were
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and warranted
his preventive detention. It was further submitted that the
detention of the detenu was necessary to preserve peace and
tranquillity in the locality, as his continuous involvement in
anti-social activities had endangered the life and safety of the
public, created a sense of fear and insecurity among the
residents of the locality and adjoining areas, and disturbed
public order. It was contended that the offences attributed to
the detenu fall within the ambit of Section 2(t)(i) and (ii) of the
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and
consequently, he squarely answers the description of a
“known rowdy” under Section 2(p)(ii) of the Act. It was,
therefore, submitted that Exhibit P1 order of detention and
Exhibit P2 order of approval are legal, valid and fully justified
in law. Reliance is placed on the dictum Haradhan Saha &
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 15 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
Anr. v. State of West Bengal and others [(1975) 3 SCC
198]; Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharastra :
[(1981) 4 SCC 647]; Union of India v. Dimple Happy
Dhakad : [(2019) 20 SCC 609]. It is thus submitted by the
learned Public Prosecutor that there is no reason to interfere
with Exhibits P1 and P2 orders and that the W.P.(Crl.) is only
to be dismissed.
14. We have heard both sides in detail and have
considered the respective contentions put forth. We have also
perused the report of the Advisory Board along with the
‘Reasons for its opinion’, and the ‘Proceedings of the Advisory
Board’ produced by the learned Public Prosecutor in a sealed
envelope. We note that the Advisory Board had heard the
detenu, the counsel for the detenu, the representative of the
sponsoring authority, the District Police Chief, Kollam City,
District Magistrate, Kollam for the detaining authority on
19.02.2026. After an elaborate consideration of the
contentions put forth on behalf of the detenu as well as for
the State, the Advisory Board had provided its opinion.
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 16 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
15. The following questions arise for our
consideration:
(1) Whether there has been inordinate delay
leading to the snapping of the live connection
between the last prejudicial activity and the
detention order?
(2)Whether the non consideration of Ext. P3
representation preferred by the detenu vitiates
the detention rendering Ext. P1 and P2 legally
unsustainable?
(3) Whether the orders issued and proceedings
initiated against the detenu are vitiated for the
reason of non supply of relied on documents
and legible copies of documents?
16. It is based on a proposal dated 18th
December,2025 submitted by the District Police Chief, Kollam
City (the Sponsoring Authority), that the proceeding under
Section 3(1) of the KAA(P)A was initiated. In its proposal, the
District Police Chief has detailed the involvement of the
detenu in twelve cases, all of which were pending before the
jurisdictional court for trial. The details of the cases in which
the petitioner got himself involved are as under:
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 17 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
Sl. Case No. & Date of Charge Sheet
Relevant Section
No Police Station Occurrence Filed143,
1277/2019
147,148,294(b),452,324,
1. Karunagappally 15.08.2019 18.12.2020
341,307,149 of IPC & Sec.
Police Station
27 of Arms Act
237/ 2020 341,427,324,308 & 34 of
2. Ochira Police 24.02.2020 IPC 30.12.2020
Station
1923/ 2020
341,294(b),323,324,308,42
3. Ochira Police 28.08.2020 10.10.2020
7,506(ii) & 34 IPC
Station
45/2021 Ochira 294(b), 323,324,326,308 &
4 07.02.2021 30.04.2021
Police Station 34 of IPC
602/2021
5. Ochira Police 13.07.2021 341,323 & 34 of IPC 20.07.2021
Station
607/2021
294(b), 341, 323, 506(ii) &
6. Ochira Police 13.07.2021 20.07.2021
34 IPC
Station
266/2023
294(b), 341,323,324,427 &
7. Kayamkulam 24.03.2023 29.04.2023
34 IPC
Police Station
533/2023
294(b), 323,324,341,308 &
8. Ochira Police 22.04.2023 12.07.2023
34 IPC
Station
584/2023
294(b), 323,324,341,308 &
9. Ochira Police 22.04.2023 08.06.2023
34 IPC
Station
1833/2024
333,126(2),115(2),324(1),
10. Kayamkulam 22.11.2024 01.03.2025
3(5) of BNS
Police Station
114/2025 189(2),191(2),191(3),190,
Ochira Police 126(2),296(b),351(2),
11. 17.01.2025 12.06.2025
Station 115(2),118(1),117(2),
110,309(4) of BNS
1925 / 2025 333,118(2),324(4),3(5) of
Under
12. Kayamkulam 04.11.2025 BNS
Investigation
Police Station
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 18 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
There are altogether 12 cases against the detenu as per the
above table and the criminal activities involved by the detenu
involve the offences registered under BNS, IPC and Arms Act
from the year 2019 to 2025 and the offences are serious in
nature.
17. The first contention put forth by the learned
counsel is regarding delay of 3 months and 10 days that had
occurred between the last prejudicial activity and the
issuance of the detention order dated 12.02.2026. According
to the learned counsel, there was delay in sponsoring the
detenu, despite his being absconding. Further there had been
a delay of 15 days in execution of the detention order even
though the detenu was in custody. The learned counsel
would term the delay as inordinate, unexplained and as long
enough to snap the live link between the last prejudicial act
and the issuance of detention order.
18. The question of delay in preventive detention
matters is no longer res integra. It is trite as has been laid
down in a catena of high authoritative precedents that delay,
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 19 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
by itself, is not a determinative factor in matters of preventive
detention. What is relevant is whether the delay has been
satisfactorily explained and whether, by reason of such delay,
the live and proximate nexus between the prejudicial
activities of the detenu and the necessity for preventive
detention has been snapped. [See Golam Hussain alias
Gama v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta [(1974) 4 SCC
530]; Jagan Nath Biswas v. State of West Bengal [(1975) 4
SCC 115]; T.A Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala [(1989) 4
SCC 741]; M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India [(1990) 2 SCC
1.] It has been unequivocally laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the said judgments that courts should not
merely on account of the delay in making of an order of
detention assume that such delay, gives rise to an inference
that there was no sufficient material for the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority or that such subjective
satisfaction was not genuinely reached. Delay, in itself, is not
a conclusive factor in cases involving preventive detention.
The principal consideration would be whether the delay has
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 20 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
been adequately explained and whether such delay has
resulted in breaking the live and proximate nexus between
the detenu’s prejudicial activities thus absolving the need or
necessity to order preventive detention.
19. In the case at hand while considering the
purported delay and the alleged snapping of live link between
the last prejudicial activity and the order of detention, it is to
be noted that the sponsoring authority has given an
explanation for the delay that has been occasioned. The sum
and substance of the same is that the last crime against the
detenu had been registered against him at Kayamkulam
Police Station on 04.11.2025 in Crime No. 1952 of 2025. The
detenu had absconded after the commission of the last
prejudicial activity. The order of detention was issued on
12.02.2026 and could be executed only on 04.03.2026, when
the detenu was apprehended. The question to be considered
is whether there was justification for invoking the preventive
detention law, and whether there has been any delay in
issuing the detention order. The further question whether the
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 21 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
delay, if any, has been reasonably/validly explained also
merits consideration. As regards the contention regarding
delay, it is seen that the last prejudicial activity relied upon is
Crime No. 1952/2025, which occurred on 04.11.2025. The
investigation report in the said crime was received by the
detaining authority on 18.12.2025. There was no delay on the
part of the Sponsoring Authority in forwarding the report.
However, on scrutiny of the records, the detaining authority
found that the materials furnished were incomplete and,
therefore, called upon the District Police Chief, Kollam (City),
to submit an additional report containing the wound
certificate and the present status of Crime No.1952 of 2025,
the bail details in Crime No.237 of 2020, legible copies of the
witness statements in the said crime, copies of the witness
statements and the final report in Crime No.602 of 2021, and
the bail particulars in Crime No.1833 of 2024.Pursuant
thereto, the Sponsoring Authority submitted an additional
report on 27.01.2026. The additional report enclosed copies
of the First Information Report, wound certificate and scene
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 22 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
mahazar in Crime No.1952 of 2025, besides informing that
the detenu was absconding and that the investigation was
still in progress. It was further clarified that no separate
recovery mahazar had been prepared in Crime No.1277 of
2019. Legible copies of the scene mahazar, witness
statements and arrest details in Crime No.237 of 2020, as
well as copies of the witness statements and the final report
in Crime No.602 of 2021, were also furnished. The report
further disclosed that in Crime No.266 of 2023, the final
report had been filed showing the detenu as absconding and,
therefore, no bail order was available. The additional report
also enclosed the earlier detention order bearing
No.DCKLM/3863/2021-M16 dated 09.05.2025 and the order
revoking the said detention. It is the specific case of the
respondents that the detention order could be issued only
after receipt and consideration of the aforesaid additional
materials, which formed an integral part of the records on the
basis of which the detaining authority arrived at its subjective
satisfaction. The slight delay occasioned in issuing the
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 23 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
detention order was thus fully explained and cannot be said
to have snapped the live and proximate link between the last
prejudicial activity and the order of preventive detention. In
the circumstances explained above, the contention that
preventive detention was not necessary and that there had
been inordinate and capable of snapping the live link, is
unsustainable. The contention that the live and proximate
link between the prejudicial activities and the order of
detention stood snapped is not supported by any material.
Contentions in the said respect put forth by the learned
counsel for the petitioner are hence unsustainable and
rejected.
20. The next question to be considered is regarding
the contention that Exhibit P3 representation preferred by the
detenu was not duly considered and disposed of thereby
prejudicially affecting his constitutionally guaranteed rights.
It is relevant in this context to note that the Supreme Court
in K.M.Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India [(1991) 1 SCC 476)]
has observed as follows;
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 24 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
“The time imperative for consideration of
representation can never be absolute or obsessive.
It depends upon the necessities and the time at
which the representation is made. The
representation may be received before the case is
referred to the advisory board, but there may not
be time to dispose of the representation before
referring the case to the advisory board. In that
situation, the representation must also be
forwarded to the advisory board along with the
case of the detenu. The representation may be
received after the case of the detenu is referred to
the board. Even in this situation, the representation
should be forwarded to the advisory board,
provided the board has not concluded the
proceedings. In both the situations, there is no
question of consideration of the representation
before the date of receipt of the report of the
advisory board. Nor it could not be said that the
Government had delayed the consideration of the
representation, unnecessarily awaiting the report
of the board. It is proper for the Government in
such situation to await the report of the board.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The above view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Golam Biswas v. Union of India and
another (supra). In Rasna v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC
Online 1690], this Court has held that inaction on the part of
the respondents in considering such representation
submitted by the detenu against his detention violates Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India, rendering the detention
illegal.
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 25 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
21. In the case at hand, it is noted that Exhibit P3
representation was preferred by the petitioner before the first
respondent and the same is dated 14.03.2026. It is the
specific case of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
Exhibit P3 representation was not considered by the 1st
respondent before approval and was not placed before the
fourth respondent, Chairman of the Advisory Board which
rendered its opinion on 08.04.2026. The contention put forth
by the learned counsel for the petitioner on this count holds
merit. A perusal of the confirmation order reveals that Exhibit
P3 representation was not before the Advisory Board when
the detention order was confirmed . Nothing has been placed
before us to disclose the fate of the representation. The
invocation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution by the detenu
and preferring of the representation cannot be brushed aside
lightly by the authorities. Such representation mirroring the
invocation of a fundamental right ought to have been duly
considered and acted upon with alacrity. No such course is
seen adopted by the authorities in the case at hand and we
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 26 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
are still in the dark regarding the fate of such representation.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the
representation submitted by the detenu was not considered
by the Government and that the impugned orders vitiate the
rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
rendering the detention illegal and unsustainable is valid and
tenable.
22. Now proceeding to consider the third and last
contention put forth by the petitioner that copies of all the
documents relied on were not provided and that those copies
provided were not legible, the petitioner has relied upon the
decision in the case of Sneha Vijayan (supra), wherein it was
observed as follows:
“9. The obligation of the detaining authority to furnish
legible copies of relied – upon documents to the
detenu is not a mere formality. Only when the said
procedure is scrupulously complied with, the detenu
can file an effective representation before theAdvisory
Board and the Government. The right of the detenue
to file an effective representation before the
Government as well as the Advisory Board is a
constitutional right under Art.22(5) and also a
statutory right. Therefore, it is the duty of the
detaining authority to ensure that the copies of the
impugned order as well as the relevant documents
which are furnished to the detenu at the time of
effecting his arrest are legible so as to enable him to
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 27 CNR : KLHC0103548020262026:KER:53125
approach the Advisory Board as well as the
Government, to make an effective representation.
……………
11. It is trite that something more than mere
registration of an FIR is required to reckon a case that
is under investigation, for the purpose of passing a
there must be some additional materials to make a
case qualified to be reckoned for passing a detention
order. As already discussed, on verification by the
Court, it is revealed that the copy of the records,
including vital documents like FIS, mahazar etc.,
verified by the detaining authority during the course
of its proceedings are not legible. The copies of the
said documents furnished to the detenu are also
established to be illegible. Therefore, the objective as
well as the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
detaining authority is apparently vitiated. As rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if
the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is eschewed from consideration, there would
be a long delay between the registration of the last
qualified case and the order of detention. On the said
ground, Ext.P1 order warrants interference.
13. In the case at hand, it is established that
the copies supplied on the detenu were not legible
making him incapacitatedto file an effective
representation. The said serious lapse is a ground to
interfere with the impugned order. An order of
detention, under KAA(P) Act has wide ramifications as
far as the personal as well as the fundamental rights
of an individual are concerned. Therefore, the
detaining authority should have acted with much
alacrity in ensuring that all the procedural formalities
are adhered to.” (emphasis supplied)
23. The contention regarding the supply of illegible
documents, is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor
pointing out that the same is devoid of merit as at the time of
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 28 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
execution of the detention order, the detenu had
acknowledged receipt of legible and readable copies of the
relied-upon documents. It was further argued that the detenu
had thereafter submitted an effective representation before
the Government, which itself demonstrated that no prejudice
had been caused to him on account of any alleged illegibility
of documents. The learned Public Prosecutor, therefore,
contended that there was no violation of the constitutional
safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
of India. He places reliance on the decision in Usha Agarwal
v. Union of India and others [(2007) 1 SCC 295] and Molly
v. State of Kerala and others [W.P.(Crl.) No.133 of 2021]
contend that unless actual prejudice is established, the
detention order cannot be invalidated on the ground of
alleged defects in the copies supplied to the detenu. The
relevant paragraph relied upon by the learned Public
Prosecutor in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Usha Agarwal (supra) is reproduced below:
“19. The High Court has examined the copies that
were furnished to the detenu. In regard to the
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 29 CNR : KLHC0103548020262026:KER:53125
grievance relating to illegible copies occurring
between pp. 493 and 887 and the last page, the
High Court found that these were copies of the
documents which were supplied by the detenu
himself, and the Department could do no better
than to furnish the copies thereof. If the documents
furnished by the detenu to the Department
contained some portions or pages which were
illegible, obviously the copies thereof furnished by
the detaining authority to the detenu will also
contain such illegible portions. The learned counsel
for the appellant contended that if really any
document furnished by the detenu was illegible, it
could not have been used against the detenu. But
this contention overlooks the fact that a document
may contain several sheets and illegibility of some
sheets or parts of some sheets will not come in the
way of the authorities making use of the legible
portions of the documents furnished by the detenu,
supplemented by other documents secured during
investigation. There is nothing strange in the
Department making use of partially legible
documents furnished by detenu. Therefore,
illegibility of portions of documents which are
copies of documents furnished by the detenu,
cannot be a ground for grievance by the detenu.
Insofar as the allegation that some of the sheets
between pp. 124 to 371B were illegible is
concerned, the High Court after having gone
through the copies of documents furnished to the
detenu, has found no substance in the contention.
In fact, while acknowledging the copies of
documents, the detenu has made an endorsement
that they were legible. 20. The entire issue of
furnishing of illegible copies is with reference to the
question whether the detenu’s right to make an
effective representation against his detention is
hampered by non-supply of legible copies. The High
Court after an examination of the copies of
documents found that the detenu was not so
hampered. Having gone through the
representations made by the detenu against his
detention, we also find that he was in no way
hampered by the fact that a few of the
sheets/copies of documents were partly illegible.
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 30 CNR : KLHC0103548020262026:KER:53125
We, therefore, find no merit in the second
contention, nor any reason to interfere with the
finding of the High Court in this behalf.”
24. Similarly, the relevant paragraphs in the case of
Molly (supra) reads as follows:
“11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a
contention that certain documents served on the
detenu were illegible copies and the specific pages
were referred to. The reference made is concerning
Crime Nos.2849/2016 and 1435/2019. In this
context we are of the opinion none of these be
reckoned, since for preventive detention of one year
following earlier detention under KAA(P)A; there need
be only one crime registered as is required under
S.13(2). After revocation or expiry of a detention order
if the detenu continues to be a ‘known goonda’ or
‘known rowdy’ under S.2(o) or S.2(p), then under
S.13(2) and if he is involved in one single offence of
the nature described in S.2(o) or (p), under Section
13(2)(i); there can be a subsequent detention order. In
the circumstance under S.13(2)(i), the period can also
extend upto one year as per S.12. In the present case,
there is also a conviction entered for the offence
committed after the earlier detention and there are
numerous crimes committed by the detenu. S.7(4)
provides that the order of detention shall not be
deemed to be invalid because one or more of the facts
or circumstances cited among the grounds are vague,
non-existent, irrelevant or invalid for any reason
whatsoever. The illegible copies if rendering invalid
for consideration the two crimes referred; even then
the remaining facts legitimize the detention. We
reiterate that there is only need for one such offence
after the earlier detention and in the present case
there are six other cases registered. Even if the two
crimes above referred are eschewed, there are six
other crimes registered and also one conviction in one
of such crimes registered, subsequent to the earlier
detention.”
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 31 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
25. In the case at hand the original file had been
called for and perused jointly in court. The pages of the
documents supplied which are illegible have been identified
by the learned counsel for the petitioner from the original file
in the presence of the learned Public Prosecutor. It was
clearly admitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that some
of the pages of the relevant documents were illegible. We have
inspected the original file, and find that the contention of the
petitioner regarding the illegibility of such documents thereby
preventing him from making proper and effective
representation is clearly established. It is trite law that the
Detaining Authority is required to supply legible copies in
order to enable the detenu to make an effective
representation. In view of the above, we find merit in the
contention put forth by the petitioner’s counsel that the
detenu had been incapacitated by such non compliance and
that his interests had been prejudicially affected by the fact
that illegible copies were provided to him. The detention of
the detenu is bad on the said count too.
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 32 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that
the detention of the husband of the petitioner is not in
accordance with the mandates of law and hence cannot be
sustained. Exhibits P1 and P2 orders are liable to be set
aside and it is hereby ordered so. The 5 th respondent
Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Viyyur is hereby directed
to set the said detenu viz., Shan, aged 29 years, S/o.Jaffar,
Kunnuthara Veettil, Kappil Mekkumuri, Krishnapuram,
Kollam, Pin-690 533, free forthwith if his detention is not
required in any other matter.
The Registry shall communicate this to the 5th
respondent by email at once. The report in the sealed cover
shall be returned to the learned Senior Public Prosecutor
forthwith.
Sd/-
SOUMEN SEN
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl/SL
WP(CRL.) NO.781/2026 33 CNR : KLHC010354802026
2026:KER:53125
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 781 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.DCKLM/291/2026-M-16
DATED 12.02.2026 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT).NO.1381/2026/HOME
DATED 20.04.2026
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
14.03.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
22.04.2026
