The right of a detenu to have their representation considered is constitutional, but must align with procedural requirements set by the advisory board's timeline.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1948 WP(CRL.) NO. 443 OF 2026 PETITIONER:

SUHARA MAMOLATH AGED 49 YEARS KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, KAKKULAM, VALARAD, PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 676521 BY ADVS.

SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH SRI.LIBIN STANLEY SMT.SAIPOOJA SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL SMT.R.GAYATHRI SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA (HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 682031

2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 676505

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF MALAPPURAM, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, DPO ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -

676505

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR, VIYYUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680010 BY ADVS.

SRI.K.A.ANAS, G. P.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

30.12.2025 passed against one Muhammed Mubashir, 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 detention order was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 06.03.2026, 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, after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, on 29.10.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of 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.

3. Altogether, three cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity against the detenu is Crime No.513/2025 of Pandikkad Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 8(c) of the NDPS Act.

4. We heard Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, 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.P2 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. The learned Counsel urged that, although the petitioner had forwarded a representation to the Government assailing the detention order, the said representation was not considered by the Government in time, and its fate was also not communicated. On the said premise, it was urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader, 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 Government Pleader, the representation submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Government, and its fate was duly communicated to her, and the contra- contention, sticking on non-consideration of the representation, is absolutely baseless.

7. Before delving into a discussion regarding the riv