The court reaffirmed the validity of the detention order under the KAA(P) Act, emphasizing adherence to due process and rejecting claims of improper consideration.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

An order of detention dated 30.07.2025, passed against one Sajan @ Parunthu Sajan, S/o.Thankachan (the detenu), under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act , 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity), has been under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. For the purpose of initiating the proceedings under the KAA(P) Act, the detenu was classified as a known rowdy as defined under Section

2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.

2. For passing the impugned detention order, the jurisdictional authority considered four cases in which the detenu was involved. Out of the said cases considered, the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.895/2025 of Kazhakuttom Police Station alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 2 96(b), 126(2), 118(1), 110, r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ 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 the Ext.P1 order was passed without proper application of mind and on an improper consideration of facts. It is contented that, after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition challenging Ext.P1 detention order, the Advisory Board constituted under the provisions of the KAA(P) Act abruptly dismissed the representation submitted by the detenu without affording an opportunity of hearing to the detenu or his counsel, citing the reason that the matter had already been considered by the High Court. According to the learned counsel, it was without hearing the detenu or his counsel that the Advisory Board had forwarded its opinion to the 1st respondent, the Government, who subsequently confirmed the detention order.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 detention order after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government Pleader, the contention of the petitioner that the Advisory Board formed its opinion and forwarded a report to the Government without hearing the detenu or his counsel is absolutely baseless. On the contrary, it was only after duly considering the representation submitted by the detenu, the Advisory Board forwarded its opinion to the Government, which subsequently confirmed the detention order. The learned Government Pleader further pointed out that this Court had already considered all the contentions taken by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition filed challenging the same detention order, and hence, the present writ petition filed challenging the same order is only a ruse to reagitate the matter afresh. On these premises, it was urged that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. As is evident from the records, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, forwarded a proposal for the initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the detenu. Altogether, five cases in which the detenu was involved formed the basis for passing the detention order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 detention order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction.

7. More pertinently, the present writ petition is the second petition filed challenging the very same order