The Kerala High Court set aside a preventive detention order issued against a detenue, holding that the non-supply of legible documents and the delay in considering his representation violated constitutional safeguards. The Court underscored that the power to detain preventively, while constitutionally permitted, must not override the procedural protections afforded to personal liberty.
In the present case, the petitioner challenged a preventive detention order passed against an individual who was lodged in Central Prison, Viyyur. It was alleged that the detenue was not provided legible copies of the documents relied upon for his detention. Furthermore, his representation, made against the detention, remained pending for an unreasonably long period without meaningful consideration or timely disposal.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the detenue's constitutional rights under Article 22 were grossly violated. It was submitted that the failure to serve legible copies of the documents deprived the detenue of an effective opportunity to challenge the grounds of detention. Further, the inordinate delay in disposing of his representation demonstrated a complete lack of urgency and seriousness on the part of the detaining authority.
The Kerala High Court, while analysing the preventive detention framework, observed, “The power of courts against the harsh incongruities and unpredictabilities of preventive detention is not merely ‘a page of history’ but a whole volume.”
The Court emphasized that preventive detention, although permitted by law, must be used with extreme caution. It explained that such laws are justified only by the compelling need to maintain public order and the security of the state, which occasionally necessitate curtailment of individual liberty. However, this restriction must be balanced with constitutional safeguards.
Citing the words of Thomas Jefferson, the Court remarked, “To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty and all those who are enjoying with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Ultimately, the Court found that non-service of legible copies and the delay in considering the representation “vitiate the order of detention.”
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the detention order. It directed the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, to release the detenue forthwith, if he was not required in any other case. The Registry was further instructed to immediately communicate the judgment to the prison authorities.
Case Title: Manjusha K.P vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Case No: WP(Crl.) No. 440 of 2025
Coram: JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. M.H. Hanis, T.N. Lekshmi Shankar, Nancy Mol P., Anandhu P.C., Neethu G. Nadh, Ria Elizabeth T.J., Sahad M. Hanis
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. K.A. Anas
Picture Source :
