Failure to provide legible copies of relied-upon documents violates the constitutional right to make an effective representation. Additionally, a detention order is invalid if the authority fails to record specific subjective satisfaction that existing bail conditions are insufficient to restrain the detenu from future prejudicial activities.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMEN SEN, CJ.

1. “The jurisdiction of suspicion” is invoked by the writ petitioner, the wife of the detenu, in view of the order of detention passed by the District Collector & District Magistrate of Pathanamthitta District under Section 3(3) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (in short the “Act”). The detenu was directed to be detained and kept in Central Prison, Viyyur, is the subject matter of challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

2. The learned brother Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has elaborately discussed the matter, both in respect of fact and law, with which I fully concur.

3. I would like to summarise my views without elaborating on the facts in support of the conclusion arrived at by my brother Judge.

4. The detenu was accused in 7 number of cases, out of which, 6 cases are bailable and the last case was a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, in which he was granted bail on 17.11.2025. The relevant portion of the bail order is mentioned herein:

“(1) Executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum.

(2) Subject to the condition that the accused shall not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

(3) The accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in writing.”

5. The Detaining Authority directed preventive detention by placing reliance upon the past incidents of the detenu and was of the view that the Hon’ble Court had taken a lenient view as regards the bail conditions which appear to be the basis of the said order. The Advisory Committee had concurred with the views of the Detaining Authority, but curiously, it did not consider the last case, i.e., the NDPS case.

6. The grounds of challenge in this habeas corpus petition against the preventive detention of the detenu are two fold – firstly, the non-supply of few legible documents statutorily and mandatorily required to be supplied to the detenu for making an effective representation and secondly, there is a reasonable time gap between the date of the order passed against the detenu releasing him from incarceration and the order passed by the Detaining Authority. The non- consideration of the sufficiency of the bail conditions was also urged.

7. Heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A Anas, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon four decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court so as to substantiate his contentions. He firstly relied upon paragraphs 34 and 35 of the decision in Pramod Singla v. Union of India,  2023 SCC OnLine SC 374, which read as follows:

“34. In cases where illegible documents have been supplied to the detenue, a grave prejudice is caused to the detenue in availing his right to send a representation to the relevant authorities, because the detenue, while submitting his representation, does not have clarity on the grounds of his or her detention. In such a circumstance, the relief under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the relevant statutory provisions allowing for submitting a representation are vitiated, since no man can defend himself against an unknown threat.

35. In Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra [1962 SCC OnLine SC 117 : 1962 Supp (2) SCR 918: AIR 1962 SC 911], this Court held that in cases of preventi