Detention orders under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act must comply with procedural requirements, including consideration of bail conditions, and failure to serve certain documents does not invalidate the order if the authority acted within its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

An order of detention dated 28.12.2024 passed under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity) against one Joji, S/o. Shaji, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu. After 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 six months from the date of detention.

2. As revealed from the records, the proposal for initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act was submitted by the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural. 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 7 cases in which the detenu got involved. The case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.1093/2024 of Kuruppampady Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 110, 296(b), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 309(6) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”) and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (prevention of attrocities) Act.

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, there is an inordinate delay in passing the impugned order after the alleged commission of the last prejudicial activity and the said delay will snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the detention order. It was further contended that the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order without seriously taking note of the fact that the detenu was already on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity. According to the counsel, the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed by the court while granting bail to the petitioner was not properly considered by the jurisdictional authority and passed the impugned order in a hasty manner. The counsel further urged that, initially, on 15.11.2024, though the SHO, Kuruppampady Police Station, forwarded a report recommending initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act against the petitioner, to the Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural, the sponsoring authority, the said report was returned by the latter for rectifying some defects found in the said report. Thereafter, on 02.12.2024, the SHO, Kuruppampady Police Station re-submitted the report after rectifying the shortcomings. But the copy of the said report was not served on the detenu. According to the learned counsel, the non-service of the copy of the said report of the SHO to the detenu is fatal, and the impugned order is liable to be interfered with on the said sole ground. 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. The learned counsel further contended that though several grounds for setting aside the impugned were raised in the representation submitted before the Advisory Board and the Government, the representation was not properly considered by the Government and in the reply given by the Gov