Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner, who is the mother of Mr. Nishad, aged 24 years, S/o Noushad, Karimaram Colony, Kanakkode, Karamoodu, Vellarada, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the ‘detenue’), who has been detained in Central Prison, Viyyur, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 21.03.2026 issued by the 2^nd respondent District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvananthauram, under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA (P) Act’ for short), Ext.P2 order dated 08.04.2026 issued by the Government under Section 3(3) of the KAA(P) Act, approving Ext.P1 order and Ext.P3 order dated 30.05.2026 issued by the Government under Section 10(4) of the KAA(P) Act confirming the detention for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith, contending that his detention is illegal.

2. The pleadings and materials on record would show that for ordering preventive detention of the detenue by classifying him as a ‘known rowdy’, the authorities have taken into consideration 9 criminal cases in which the detenue was involved. Before initiation of the present proceedings under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act, the detenue was subjected to a similar detention order. He was also subjected to an order under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act on two occasions, prior to the previous detention order. After the last detention order, the detenue was involved in Crime No.51 of 2026 of Vellarada Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’ for short), which was the last prejudicial activity taken into consideration for ordering preventive detention. The incident of the last prejudicial activity occurred on 20.01.2026, and the crime was registered on 21.01.2026. The detenue was arrested in that crime on 21.01.2026, and he was granted bail by the jurisdictional Court on 11.03.2026. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyyattinkara, submitted the sponsoring report dated 20.02.2026 based on the report of the Station House Officer, Vellarada Police Station, dated 13.02.2026, to the 2^nd respondent seeking action against the detenue under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act. Based on the said report, Ext.P1 detention order dated 21.03.2026 was issued by the 2^nd respondent, and it was executed on 29.03.2026. Ext.P1 detention order was approved by the Government under Section 3(3) of the KAA(P) Act by Ext.P2 order dated 08.04.2026. Thereafter, by Ext.P3 order dated 30.05.2026, the Government ordered that the detention of the detenue shall be continued for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention. The detenue submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 24.07.2026 before the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government against the detention order. Being aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P3 orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. The 3^rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 22.10.2026, and the 1^st respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 31.10.2026, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. The steps taken for ordering preventive detention of the detenue were detailed in the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 and

3.

4. Heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Chethan Krishna, the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following arguments impugning the detention order;

(1) Along with the detention order, the detenue was served with copies of the records pertaining to the last prejudicial activity alone. The detenue ought to have been served with copies of all nine criminal cases considered by the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P1 detention order.

(2) The sufficiency