The detaining authority must provide legible copies of relied-upon documents to ensure the detenu can make an effective representation, as per constitutional rights under Article 22(5).

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner is the mother of Amith Sankar ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 detention order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act , 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The said detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 14.01.2026, 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 04.08.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, 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 rowdy' as defined under Section 2 (p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether, seven cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order.

3. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.621/2025 of Kattoor Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 351(3), 296(b), 111(2)(b), 111(3) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ” BNS ”).

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 copies of the relied- upon documents served on the detenu, some of the copies 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 the said premise, 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. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor sought an order dismissing the writ petition.

7. As evident from the records, altogether seven cases in which teh detenu got involved have formed the basis 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.621/2025 of Kattoor Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 351(3), 296(b), 111(2)(b), 111(3) r/w 3(5) of BNS . The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 24.06.2025. The detenu, who was arrayed as the 3rd accused in the said case, was arrested in the said case only on 29.07.2025, as he had absconded after the commission of the said offence. Subsequently, it was on 22.09.2025, that the detenu got bail in the said case. It was on 04.08.2025 that the District Police Chief forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act, and