R. Basant, J.

Does a literate detenu detained under the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act. 2007 (hereinafter referred, to as the ‘KAAPA’) have the right to be furnished with the relevant documents in a script and language which he can read and understand? Does the failure/omission to so furnish documents vitiate the detention? These questions arise for determination in this case.

2. To the vitally relevant facts first. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. He is detained as per Ext.P2 order passed by the 3rd respondent under S.3 of the KAAPA. That order is dated 3/8/2009. The detenu was arrested and his detention commenced on 6/8/2009. The detenu is allegedly a known rowdy involved in seven cases, all of which come within the purview of S.2(t) of the KAAPA. Order of approval under S.3(3) and order of confirmation under S.10(4) have already been passed, it is submitted.

3. It is not disputed that the mother tongue of the detenu is Urdu. He hails from the border district of Kasargod close to the Kerala-Karnataka border. He studied in a Kannada medium school. He can speak and understand Malayalam; but he cannot read or write Malayalam.

4. The relevant documents referred to in S. 7(2) of the KAAPA were furnished to the detenu in English and Malayalam. Ext.P1 report of the sponsoring authority was in English; whereas all other relevant documents are in Malayalam. The documents were read over and explained to the detenu obviously in Malayalam. He evidently understood the contents of those documents. But copies were not furnished to him in Kannada and were furnished to him only in Malayalam. He did not raise any objections when the documents were furnished to him. He acknowledged receipt of the documents in his own hand in Kannada language.

5. Admittedly, the detenu did not make any representation to the Government or the Advisory Board under S.7(2) of the KAAPA. Through his mother, he chose to come before this court with this petition for issue or a writ of habeas corpus to assail the order of detention and the consequent detention.

6. On these fundamental facts stated in paragraphs 2 to 5 above, there is no dispute between the parties. Various grounds are urged to challenge. Ext.P2 order of detention and the consequent detention. At the end of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Padmakuinari.R submits that the petitioner does not want to assail the impugned order on any other ground. The learned counsel assails the impugned order on the following sole ground. That is:

The copies of documents having not been furnished to the literate detenu in a language/ script which he can read, there is crucial and vital infraction of the mandate of Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India and S. 7(2) of the KAAPA.

7. Detailed arguments have been advanced before us. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions have taken us through the relevant provisions of the Constitution, statute and precedents after due research. We may, at the outset, reiterate that the factual details narrated in paragraphs 2 to 5 above are not disputed by either side. In this fact scenario, this court has to decide whether the omission to furnish the relevant documents in the Kannada script which alone the detenu is able to read and write vitiates the detention.

8. It will be appropriate at the very outset to refer to Art. 22(5) of the Constitution and S. 7(2) of KAAPA. We extract the same below:

“Art. 22(5): When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.”

“S. 7(2): The grounds of detention, specifying the instances of offences, with copies of relevant documents, as far as practicable, on th