Preventive detention must respect the fundamental rights of the individual, including the right to effective representation.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 08.08.2025 passed against one Riyas, S/o.Shukoor (the detenu) under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act , 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 06.10.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months, from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, on 19.07.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of 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 'known rowdy’ as defined under Section 2 (p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether nine cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.546/2025 of Anjuthengu Police Station alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 329(3), 351(2), 109(1), r/w 3(5) of BNS and the detenu is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case.

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 Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. According to the learned counsel, there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the impugned order, and the said delay will certainly snap the livelink between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. The learned counsel further urged that, though the detenu had forwarded representations to the Government and the Advisory Board assailing the detention order, the said representations were not considered by the Government, and its fate was also not communicated to him so far. It was further submitted that the copies of some of the relied upon documents served on the detenu are illegible and, hence, the detenu was incapacitated from filing an effective representation before the Advisory Board. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order, and hence the petitioner’s contention that the livelink between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the detention order is snapped will not be sustained. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the representations submitted by the detenu to the Advisory board as well as to the Government were duly considered, and its fate was communicated to the detenu, and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the representations submitted by the detenu were not at all considered, is absolutely baseless. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that some of the copies of the relied-upon documents were illegible is