The accuracy of procedural compliance in providing legible documents to a detenu is crucial to uphold their right to effective representation against detention.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner is the wife of Abdul Kareem @ Thadathil Kareem ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 detention order dated 11.11.2025 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 23.01.2026, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of execution of the order.

2. The records reveal that, on 18.09.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, 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, four 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.854/2025 of Thanur Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (1), 309(6), 311, 312, 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 Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 detention 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 Government as well as 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 Government Pleader, submitted that the detention order was passed after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government Pleader, 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 Government Pleader sought an order dismissing the writ petition.

7. As evident from the records, altogether four cases in which the 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.854/2025 of Thanur Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (1), 309(6), 311, 312, r/w 3(5) of the BNS . The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 14.08.2025. The detenu, who was arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case, was arrested on 23.08.2025, and since then, he has been under judicial custody. It was on 18.09.2025 that the District Police Chief forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the detenu, and fin