While taking a very bold and most decisive step in protecting most strictly and most commendably the legal rights of the detenu, the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in a most commendable, courageous, cogent, creditworthy and calibrated judgment titled Manjusha KP vs State of Kerala & Ors in W.P(Crl.) No.440/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:KER:48477 that was pronounced as recently as on July 4, 2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms most unambiguously that the procedural formalities concerning the preventive detention shall be strictly followed and that the materials to be supplied to the detenu shall be eligible and readable. Very rightly so! It must be noted here that a writ petition had been filed by the mother of the detenu, who was declared a “known rowdy” under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 alleging clearly that the copies of detention order that were supplied to them were illegible.
At the very outset, this learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice KV Jayakumar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The petitioner is the mother of detenu, Midhun P.P @ Kuttappi (‘detenu’ for the sake of brevity). The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of detention dated 04.02.2025 passed by the 2 nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [‘KAA(P) Act’ for the sake of brevity]. The aforesaid order was approved by the Government vide order No.DCKNR/16026/2024-SSI dated 04.02.2025.”
Briefly stated, the Bench while elaborating on the details of the cases discloses in para 2 stating that, “The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kannur City on 26.12.2024 seeking initiation of proceedings against the petitioner’s son 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 2p(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. The detaining authority has taken into consideration a total of four cases involving the petitioner’s son while issuing the impugned order of detention.”
Simply put, the Bench then specifies in para 3 mentioning that, “The case registered in relation to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No. 1009/2024 of Panoor Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 79, 296, and 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The detenu is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case. The detenu was arrested on 07.12.2024 and released on bail on the same day itself.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench while dwelling on the submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner envisages in para 5 that, “Submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner:
5.1 Ext. P1 order is passed in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind and in disregard of the procedural safeguards mandated under the KAA(P) Act.
5.2 The procedure mandated under Section 7(2) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act has not been strictly followed.
5.3 The learned counsel contended that there was a delay of two months between the last prejudicial activity and the issuance of Ext. P1 order, as well as an unexplained delay of eight days in its execution. It was submitted that the absence of any explanation for the delay renders the detention order vitiated.
5.4. The documents supplied to the detenu along with the detention order are illegible. It has resulted in grave prejudice being caused to the detenu in availing his right to send a representation to the relevant authorities.
5.5 Though separate representations were submitted before both the Government and the Advisory Board on 28.02.2025, as evidenced by Exhibits P3 and P4, highlighting various contentions—including the illegibility of the documents supplied—no remedial action was undertaken. These representations were considered only subsequent to the issuance of the detention order. Moreover, the representations were not duly or meaningfully considered, as no explanation whatsoever has been offered regarding the supply of illegible documents, thereby rendering the right of effective representation illusory.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 8 that, “Before further discussion, it may be useful to extract Section 7 of the KAA(P) Act.
7. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed.
(1) When a person is arrested in pursuance of a detention order the officer arresting him shall read out the detention order to him and give him a copy of such order.
(2) The grounds of detention, specifying the instances of offences, with copies of relevant documents, as far as practicable, on the basis of which he is considered as a “known goonda” or “known rowdy” and giving such materials-relating to his activities on the basis of which his detention has been found necessary, shall be furnished to him as soon as possible, nevertheless, in any case, within five days of detention and he shall also be informed in writing, under acknowledgment, of his right to represent to the Government and before the Advisory Board against his detention:
Provided that nothing in this section shall require any authority to disclose to the detained person any fact, the disclosure of which will reveal the identity of any confidential source or the disclosure of which will be against the interests of internal security or national security.
(3) The Superintendent of the Jail where such person is detained shall afford him reasonable opportunity to consult a lawyer and reasonable assistance in making a representation against the detention order to the Government or to the Advisory Board.
(4) The order of detention shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because one or more of the facts or circumstances cited among the grounds are vague, non-existent, irrelevant or invalid for any reason whatsoever and such order shall be deemed to have been made by the Government or the Authorised Officer after having been satisfied about the need for detention with reference to the remaining facts and circumstances, provided that the minimum conditions for being classified as a known goonda or known rowdy are satisfied.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 9 noting that, “Section 7(2) of the KAA(P) Act specifically states that the grounds of detention, specifying the instances of offences, with copies of relevant documents, based on which the detenu is considered as a “known goonda” or “known rowdy” and giving such materials relating to his activities, shall be furnished to the detenu as soon as possible, at any rate, within five days of detention. The detenu shall also be informed in writing, under acknowledgment, of his right to represent to the Government and before the Advisory Board against his detention. The proviso to Section 7(2) makes it amply clear that the detaining authority need not disclose any fact which would reveal the identity of any confidential source or any fact which would be against the interest of internal security or national security.”
Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 11 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The petitioner has produced copies of the documents which were provided to him and we have perused the same. We find that Page Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 are illegible and unreadable. Section 7(2) mandates that the grounds of detention, with all relevant documents and materials, based on which the detention has been found necessary, shall be furnished to the detenu, as soon as possible, at any rate within five days. It is trite law that the procedural formalities concerning the preventive detention shall be strictly followed. The materials to be supplied to the detenu shall be legible and readable. The compliance of subsection (2) of Section 7 is not an empty formality. Only when the legible and readable copies are furnished to the detenu, he could make an effective representation before the Advisory Board and the Government. It is the bounden duty of the detaining authority to ensure that copies furnished to the detenu shall be legible and readable.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 18 that, “We find that in the case on hand, the matter was referred for the opinion of the advisory board on 19.2.2025. Based on the opinion, the confirmation order was passed on 24.4.2025. On 29.4.2025, the fate of representation was communicated to the detenu. We have already held that some of the documents supplied to the detenu are illegible. This fact was highlighted by the detenu in Exhibit P3 and P4 representation dated 28.2.2025. However, the above grievance of the detenu was not redressed and he was not furnished with a readable copy of the illegible documents. Instead, it was only after the confirmation of the order that the representation was taken up and the same was disposed of without addressing the grievances raised there. At any rate the representation was not meaningfully considered and the same was just an empty exercise.”
Notably, the Bench notes in para 20 that, “On a careful consideration of the materials on record, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The non-serving of legible copy of the documents and the inordinate delay in meaningfully considering and disposing the representation will vitiate the order of detention.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 21 that, “In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, Thrissur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Midhun P.P @ Kuttappi. forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, Thrissur, forthwith.”
In conclusion, we see that the Kerala High Court has made it indubitably clear that procedural formalities in preventive detention must be strictly followed. It was also made abundantly clear by court that copies that are furnished to the detenu shall be legible and readable. Absolutely right! No denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi
