The Kerala High Court has held that it is the duty of the detaining authority to ensure that copies of relevant documents provided to the detenu are legible.

The Court was considering a Writ-Petition against a Detention Order passed under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 and later approved by the Government.

The single-bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian observed, "...it is the duty of the detaining authority to ensure that the copies of the impugned order as well as the relevant documents which are furnished to the detenu at the time of effecting his arrest are legible so as to enable him to approach the Advisory Board as well as the Government, to make an effective representation."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate M.H. Hanis while the Respondent was represented by Public Prosecutor K.A. Anas.

A proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief seeking initiation of proceedings against the petitioner’s husband under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority. 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. Altogether 5 cases in which the petitioner’s husband was involved have been considered by the detaining authority for passing the impugned order of detention.

The case registered regarding the last prejudicial activity the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), and 333 r/w 3(5) of BNS and the detenu is arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order is passed without proper application of mind and without adhering to the procedural formalities mentioned under the KAA(P) Act and urged that there is non-compliance with the procedure mentioned under Section 7(2) of the KAA(P) Act. According to the Counsel, though the grounds of detention, specifying the details of the cases reckoned for passing the impugned order was furnished to him, the legible copies of the documents pertaining to the case registered with respect to the last prejudical activity were not served on him. According to the counsel, the said lapse on the part of the detaining authority prejudiced him as he could not file an effective representation against the detention order before the Advisory Board.

The Court at the outset pointed out that the main dispute revolves around the compliance of the procedure mentioned under Section 7(2) of the KAA(P) Act. It found the main grievance of the petitioner that the copies of the relied-upon documents served on the detenu were illegible to be founded.

Noting that the detenu was handicapped in filing an effective representation before the Advisory Board as the copies of the relied-upon documents served on him were illegible.

"The obligation of the detaining authority to furnish legible copies of relied-upon documents to the detenu is not a mere formality. Only when the said procedure is scrupulously complied with, the detenu can file an effective representation before the Advisory Board and the Government. The right of the detenue to file an effective representation before the Government as well as the Advisory Board is a constitutional right under Article 22(5) and also a statutory right," the Court observed.

The Court stressed that the detaining authority should have acted with much alacrity in ensuring that all the procedural formalities are adhered to.

"In the case at hand, it is established that the copies supplied on the detenu were not legible making him incapacitated to file an effective representation. The said serious lapse is a ground to interfere with the impugned order. An order of detention, under KAA(P) Act has wide ramifications as far as the personal as well as the fundamental rights of an individual are concerned," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly set-aside.

Cause Title: Sneha Vijayan vs. State of Kerala (2025:KER:7208)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate M.H. Hanis, Advocate T.M. Lekshmi Shankar, Advocate Nancy Mol P., Advocate Anandhu P.C., Advocate Ann Marry Ansel, Advocate Sinihsa Joshy, Advocate Ria Elizabeth T.J., Advocate Sahad M. Hanis

Respondent- Public Prosecutor K.A. Anas.

Click here to read/ download Order