The court upheld the detention order under the KAA(P) Act, affirming that procedural requirements were met and the detenu's rights were not violated despite minor document illegibility.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner is the wife of Shyam Kumar ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 14.11.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 22.01.2025 and the detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of execution of the order.

2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural on 17.10.2024 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 goonda’ as defined under Section 2(o)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether six 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 records further reveal that the detenu is involved in 25 cases altogether. However, for the purpose of passing the detention order, which is under challenge in this writ petition, the jurisdictional authority reckoned only the abovementioned six cases, which were registered within the last seven years preceding the date of the detention order. Out of the said six cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1294/2024 of Perumbavur Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)B & 29 of NDPS Act and the detenu is arrayed as the 1st 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 were furnished to him, the legible copies of the seizure mahazar and final report 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 seriously prejudiced the detenu as he could not file an effective representation against the detention order before the Government. Moreover, it was contended that in the impugned order, the compelling circumstances to pass an order of detention against the detenu who has already been in judicial custody in connection with the last case registered against him were not adverted to. The learned counsel further submitted that the Government failed to consider the representation submitted by the detenu forthwith after obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board. Moreover, it was urged that though in the impugned order it is mentioned that proceedings under