IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of the detention order under the KAA(P) Act, confirming that procedural compliance was met and no infringement of the detenu's rights occurred.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition has been directed against an order of detention dated 28.12.2024 passed against one Amal, S/o. Ramachandran, under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu. Upon considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government vide order dated 17.02.2025 has confirmed the order and the son of the petitioner has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year.

2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Ernakulam, seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) r/w 13(2)(i) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. For passing the order of detention the authority reckoned eight cases in which the detenu got involved. The case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.1114/2024 of Kuruppampady Police Station alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 351 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”).

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority without proper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel after passing the impugned order of detention, the jurisdictional authority did not forward the order to the Government forthwith and the said lapses itself will vitiate the impugned order. The learned counsel further submitted that the above action of the jurisdictional authority is violative of the provision contained under Section 3(3) of the KAA(P) Act. According to the counsel, the sponsoring authority forwarded the proposal on the basis of a report submitted by the SHO of Kuruppampady Police Station. But, as there were some shortcomings in the said report, in order to undo the same, another report was forwarded by the SHO. However, the copy of the said additional report was not served on the detenu. The learned counsel further submitted that, though on behalf of the detenu, he prepared a representation for being forwarded to the Government and sent to the Jail Superintendent concerned, the latter in turn sent back the said representation to the counsel for the petitioner himself without sending the same to the Government. According to the counsel, the said malfeasance on the part of the Jail Superintendent will seriously affect the constitutional as well as statutory right of the detenu and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the said sole ground.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the order of detention impugned by way of this writ petition was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind. According to him the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the copy of the impugned order was not forthwith forwarded to the Government is baseless. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the failure to serve the detenu with a copy of the SHO’s additional report is of minimal consequence, as the jurisdictional authority did not rely on that report in issuing the impugned order, but instead based its decision on the proposal submitted by the Superintendent of Police. The learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that the representation prepared on behalf of the detenu by his counsel and sent to the Jail Superintendent, which was meant for forwarding to the Government, was sent back to the counsel for the petitioner. But this was done at the detenu’s own request. Moreover, another representation, which is the verbatim reproduction of the rep