Kerala High Court
Anusuya vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:80803
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 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1368 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANUSUYA
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O VITTALA SHETTY, AMMANNA BENTTA, R.D. NAGAR,
KUDLU, MADHUR, KASARGODE,, PIN - 671124
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SHRI.ANANDHU P.C.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN -
695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671123
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
CIVIL STATION ROAD, KASARGOD,, PIN - 671123
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR, PIN - 670004
WP(Crl.) No. 1368 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:80803
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, G.P.
P.NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. TO DGP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 28.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No. 1368 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:80803
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition has been directed against an order of detention dated 27.09.2025 passed against one Kaushik K. S. 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.
2. The records available before us disclose that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kasaragod, on 27.08.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act against the detenu 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 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether, three cases in which the detenu got involved were considered by the jurisdictional authority while passing the detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.832/2025 of Kasaragod Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 189(2), 191(2), 193(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110 r/w 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS').
3. We have heard Sri.M.H.Hanis, the learned counsel WP(Crl.) No. 1368 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:80803 appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is vitiated, as the same has been passed without proper application of mind and in disregard of the procedural safeguards envisaged under the KAA(P) Act. According to the counsel, though the detenu is conversant in Malayalam, he is unable to read or write Malayalam. Nevertheless, the detenu was served with copies of the relied-upon documents entirely in Malayalam. It is argued that since the detenu is proficient only in Kannada, the non- service of translated copies of those documents in Kannada has caused serious prejudice to him, as it disabled him from submitting an effective representation before the Advisory Board and the Government.
5. In response, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that the detaining authority passed Ext.P1 order after proper application of mind and arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the Government Pleader, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenu could not file an effective representation before the Government and Advisory Board on account of the non- supply of the translated document is without merit. According to the learned Government Pleader, the detenu is capable of speaking WP(Crl.) No. 1368 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:80803 and understanding the Malayalam language. Moreover, at the time of executing the detention order, the said order, the grounds of detention, as well as the contents of the other relied-upon documents, were read over to the detenu in Malayalam and simultaneously translated to him in Kannada language and therefore, he could not be heard to say that he was handicapped from filing an effective representation against the detention order.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records.
7. The main contention taken in this writ petition is that since the detenu is a person who cannot read Malayalam, it was incumbent upon the detaining authority to furnish the translated copies of the detention order, the grounds of detention, and all the relied-upon documents in Kannada, the language known to the detenu. According to the writ petitioner, as the translated copies of the aforesaid documents were not served, the detenu was handicapped in filing an effective representation before the Government as well as the Advisory Board. In order to substantiate the plea that the detenu is not proficient in Malayalam, the marksheet of the copy of the SSLC book is produced along with this writ petition as Ext.P2. A perusal of Ext.P2 reveals that the language pursued by the detenu in his tenth standard was Kannada, and Malayalam was not among the subjects that he studied.
WP(Crl.) No. 1368 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:80803
Moreover, a document has been produced to show that in Sree Gopalakrishna High School, Kasaragod, where the detenu studied, the medium of instruction is Kannada. Apart from this, from a perusal of the records in this case, it is gatherable that at the time of executing the impugned order of detention, the executing authority had read over the order and other connected documents in Malayalam, and translated the same into Kannada to the detenu. In view of the above facts, we find no reason to doubt the case of the detenu that he only knows to speak Malayalam and is unable to read or write Malayalam.
8. Given that the detenu can read only Kannada, it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to serve on him a Kannada translation of all the relied-upon documents. Likewise, a translated copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention also should have been furnished to the detenu. It is only when the documents relied upon are provided in a language that the detenu can read and understand, he can file an effective representation before the Advisory Board as well as the Government. Therefore, we also find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenu was handicapped from filing an effective representation, which is a constitutional as well as statutory right of a detenu.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P1 WP(Crl.) No. 1368 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:80803 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of High Security Prison, Viyyur, Thrissur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Kaushik K. S., forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.
The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the High Security Prison, Viyyur, Thrissur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No. 1368 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:80803
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1368/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCKSGD/9051/2025/D1 (1) DATED
27.09.2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE
OF THE DETENU