IMPORTANT POINT
The failure to provide legible copies of documents to a detenu violates their constitutional right to effective representation, rendering the detention order illegal.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner is the wife of Raj Kiran K. ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 22.11.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The said order was approved by the Government vide order No.SSA2/252/2024-Home dated 30.11.2024.

2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kannur City on 07.10.2024 seeking initiation of proceedings against the petitioner’s husband under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2p(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether 5 cases in which the petitioner’s husband was involved have been considered by the detaining authority for passing the impugned order of detention and the details of the said cases are given below:-

3. The case registered regarding the last prejudicial activity is crime No.353/2024 of Pinarayi Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), and 333 r/w 3(5) of BNS and the detenu is arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case.

4. We heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order is passed without proper application of mind and without adhering to the procedural formalities mentioned under the KAA(P) Act. The learned counsel urged that there is non-compliance with the procedure mentioned under Section 7(2) of the KAA(P) Act. According to the counsel, though the grounds of detention, specifying the details of the cases reckoned for passing the impugned order was furnished to him, the legible copies of the documents pertaining to the case registered with respect to the last prejudical activity were not served on him. According to the counsel, the said lapse on the part of the detaining authority prejudiced him as he could not file an effective representation against the detention order before the Advisory Board.

6. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the order of detention was passed after complying with all the necessary legal formalities and after proper application of mind. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no delay in mooting the proposal for initiation of proceedings and in passing the order of detention. Moreover, he would submit that the copies of all the relevant records and the grounds of detention were furnished to the detenu and the detenu was informed of his right to file representation against the detention order before the Government as well as the Advisory Board.

7. From the rival contentions raised, it is decipherable that the main dispute revolves aroun