The obligation to provide legible documents to a detainee is a constitutional right; however, execution delay is permissible under specific circumstances involving absconding detainees.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

03.11.2025 passed against one Adinan @ Boxer, (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 mother of the detenu. The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 31.01.2026, 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 on 08.10.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, 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.

3. Altogether, six 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 with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1722/2025 of Kayamkulam Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(1), and 118(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( 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 the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. The learned counsel further contended that, among the copies of the relied-upon documents served on the detenu, some were illegible, and that the non-service of legible copies of all relied-upon documents constitutes a sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. It is further contended that there is a delay of twenty-four days in executing the detention order from the date of its issuance, and the said delay is not justifiable. According to the counsel, if the detenu had been absconding after the commission of the last prejudicial activity, it was incumbent upon the executing authority to report the said matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 6 of the KAA(P) Act. However, no such report was sent in this case. On these premises, it was urged that Ext.P1 order is liable to be set aside. 6. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P1 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. The Government Pleader further submitted that after the commission of the last prejudicial activity, the detenu absconded, and it was for that reason that a delay of twenty-four days in executing the impugned order. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that after the passing of the order, the executing authority had been making all earnest efforts to trace the absconding detenu to execute the order, and therefore, the delay of twenty-four days in executing the order is fully justified. It was further urged that under KAA(P) Act, no particular time is prescribed for initiating proceedings under of the KAA(P) Act against a detenu who has absconded or is concealing himself. Hence, the detenu cannot be heard to contend that the executing authority was bound to initiate proceedings under within a particular time. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that legible copies of relied-upon documents were not supplied to the detenu is absolutely baseless and the