Failure to provide legible documents to a detainee violates their constitutional right to represent before an Advisory Board, warranting quashing of the detention order.

J U D G M E N T Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner is the wife of Yasin Sajeer @ Yasin Sajar ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 detention order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent underSection 3(1) of theKerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007(‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 23.11.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year from the date of execution of the order.

2. The records reveal that, on 22.08.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under 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 a 'known goonda' as defined under Section 2(o)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order.

3. Earlier, a detention order was passed against the detenu, and after completing the period of detention provided in the said detention order, the detenu again got involved in the last prejudicial activity, which led to the passing of the present detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.817/2025 of Alathur Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order was passed without proper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel, out of the copy of the relied-upon documents served on the detenu, some of the documents were not legible. The learned counsel urged that the lapse on the part of the detaining authority in not serving the legible copies of the relied upon documents prejudiced him as he could not file an effective representation against the detention order before the Advisory Board. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, Sri. K. A. Anas, the 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. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the copies of all the relevant records were furnished to the detenu, and the detenu was duly informed of his right to file a representation against the detention order before the Government as well as the Advisory Board and hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.

7. The records reveal that the detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities. As already stated, four cases in which the detenu got involved formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.817/2025 of Alathur Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 14.07.2025, and he was arrested on the same day. Since then, he has been under judicial custody. It was on 22.08.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, that