IMPORTANT POINT
Detention orders must reflect independent consideration by the detaining authority, failing which they are invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.

The above-captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to release Rony, son of the petitioner who has been undergoing illegal detention pursuant to Ext.P1 order after producing him before this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order to quash Ext. P1 order and Ext.P3 confirmation.

2. Ext.P1 order of detention, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition, has been passed by the 2nd respondent preventively detaining Sri. Rony, the son of the petitioner, invoking powers under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (“KAA(P) Act” for the sake of brevity).

3. Ext.P1 reveals that the proposal for initiating proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was submitted by the 3rd respondent on 20.12.2024. The detenu was classified as a “known goonda” on account of his involvement in four crimes, the details of which are as under:-

1. Crime No.2247 of 2024 of the Angamaly Police Station registered under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 49, 249(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Crime. No.1725 of 2019 of the Angamaly Police Station registered under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. Crime No. 1025 of 2020 of the Angamaly Police Station registered under Sections 341, 365, 398, 392, 440, 506(ii), 34 of the IPC.

4. Crime. No 666 of 2023 of the Kalady Police Station registered under Sections 341, 323, 34 of IPC.

4. The last prejudicial activity, i.e., Crime No. 2247 of 2024, in which case the detenu has been arrayed as the 4th accused, was allegedly committed on 15.10.2024. Ext.P2 is the sponsorship report submitted by the District Police Chief on 20.12.2024. It is based on Ext. P2 that Ext. P1 detention order was issued on 30.01.2025. The order was approved by the Government on 15.02.2025. The matter was referred for the opinion of the Advisory Board on 18.02.2025, which was received on 26.03.2025. On the basis of the opinion so received, the detention order was confirmed by order dated 02.04.2025, and the detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of 6 months.

5. Sri. M. Vivek, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, made the following submissions:

(a) The detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind by the detaining authority. It has been consistently held by both the Apex Court as well as this Court that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on proper and independent consideration of all relevant materials. Mere mechanical reproduction of inputs received from sponsoring authorities will vitiate the order of detention.

(b) The impugned detention order is a verbatim reproduction of the report of sponsorship, which reveals that the detaining authority did not exercise its independent subjective satisfaction but merely endorsed the view of the police. In fact, the only visible change in the detention order from the report of sponsorship is the replacement of the word “Ethrukakshi” (meaning “opposite party”) with “Thankalkku” (meaning “you”). To substantiate this contention, the learned counsel referred to paragraph Nos. 7 to 13 of the detention order and compared them with Page Nos. 8 and 9 of the sponsorship report. According to him, such literal replication is itself conclusive proof of non-application of mind. In support, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir , [[ AIR 1985 SC 764 ]] and Rajesh Vashdev Adnani v. State of Maharashtra & Others, [[ (2005) 8 SCC 390 ]]

c) As regards the last prejudicial act, the final report in Crime No. 2247 of 2024 was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 10.01.2025. Immediately thereafter, on 14.01.2025, the sponsoring authority submitted a report to the detaining authority informing that the final report had been filed. However, in Ext.P1 detention order, it is