IMPORTANT POINT
Procedural safeguards in preventive detention must be strictly adhered to, including the provision of legible documents for effective representation.

JUDGMENT

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

The petitioner is the mother of detenu, Midhun P.P @ Kuttappi (‘detenu’ for the sake of brevity). The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of detention dated 04.02.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [‘KAA(P) Act’ for the sake of brevity]. The aforesaid order was approved by the Government vide order No.DCKNR/16026/2024-SSI dated 04.02.2025.

2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kannur City on 26.12.2024 seeking initiation of proceedings against the petitioner’s son under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2^nd 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. The detaining authority has taken into consideration a total of four cases involving the petitioner’s son while issuing the impugned order of detention. The details of these cases are provided below:-

3. The case registered in relation to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No. 1009/2024 of Panoor Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 79, 296, and 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The detenu is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case. The detenu was arrested on 07.12.2024 and released on bail on the same day itself.

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

5. Submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner:

5.1 Ext. P1 order is passed in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind and in disregard of the procedural safeguards mandated under the KAA(P) Act.

5.2 The procedure mandated under Section 7(2) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act has not been strictly followed.

5.3 The learned counsel contended that there was a delay of two months between the last prejudicial activity and the issuance of Ext. P1 order, as well as an unexplained delay of eight days in its execution. It was submitted that the absence of any explanation for the delay renders the detention order vitiated.

5.4. The documents supplied to the detenu along with the detention order are illegible. It has resulted in grave prejudice being caused to the detenu in availing his right to send a representation to the relevant authorities.

5.5 Though separate representations were submitted before both the Government and the Advisory Board on 28.02.2025, as evidenced by Exhibits P3 and P4, highlighting various contentions—including the illegibility of the documents supplied—no remedial action was undertaken. These representations were considered only subsequent to the issuance of the detention order. Moreover, the representations were not duly or meaningfully considered, as no explanation whatsoever has been offered regarding the supply of illegible documents, thereby rendering the right of effective representation illusory.

6. Submissions of the Public Prosecutor:

Sri.K.A.Anas, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the order of detention was passed after complying with all the necessary legal formalities and after proper application of mind. Moreover, 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