[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rema Vijayalal vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:11417
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 146 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
REMA VIJAYALAL
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O VIJAYALAL, THEKKETHARA HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM,
ELAMTHURUTHY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680681
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
SHRI.MUHAMMAD A. P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN -
695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE CITY POLICE CHIEF
CIVIL STATION ROAD, THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 680020
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 680026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR, PIN - 670004
W.P(Crl). No.146 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:11417
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.146 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:11417
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the mother of Amith Sankar ('detenu' for the
sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed
against Ext.P1 detention order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the 2nd
respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for brevity). The said detention
order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated
14.01.2026, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a
period of one year from the date of execution of the order.
2. The records reveal that, on 04.08.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, seeking initiation
of proceedings against the detenu 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 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether,
seven cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by
the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order.
3. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to
the last prejudicial activity is crime No.621/2025 of Kattoor Police
Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections
126(2), 351(3), 296(b), 111(2)(b), 111(3) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya
W.P(Crl). No.146 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:11417
Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
4. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P1 order was passed without proper application of mind and
without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction. According to the counsel, out of the copies of the relied-
upon documents served on the detenu, some of the copies were not
legible. The learned counsel urged that the lapse on the part of the
detaining authority in not serving the legible copies of the relied upon
documents prejudiced him as he could not file an effective
representation against the detention order before the Advisory Board.
On the said premise, it was urged that the impugned order of detention
is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor,
submitted that the order of detention was passed after complying with
all the necessary legal formalities and after proper application of mind.
According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the copies of all the
relevant records were furnished to the detenu, and the detenu was duly
informed of his right to file a representation against the detention order
before the Government as well as the Advisory Board. Hence, the
W.P(Crl). No.146 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:11417
learned Public Prosecutor sought an order dismissing the writ petition.
7. As evident from the records, altogether seven cases in
which teh detenu got involved have formed the basis for passing Ext.P1
detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the
detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.621/2025
of Kattoor Police Station, alleging the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(3), 296(b), 111(2)(b), 111(3) r/w
3(5) of BNS. The incident that led to the registration of the said case
occurred on 24.06.2025. The detenu, who was arrayed as the 3rd
accused in the said case, was arrested in the said case only on
29.07.2025, as he had absconded after the commission of the said
offence. Subsequently, it was on 22.09.2025, that the detenu got bail in
the said case. It was on 04.08.2025 that the District Police Chief
forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P)
Act, and finally, the detention order was passed on 30.10.2025. The
sequence of the events narrated above reveals that the proposal was
initiated while the detenu was under judicial custody, and the detention
order was passed without much delay from the date of the proposal.
Moreover, seven cases formed the basis for passing the detention order.
Therefore, some minimum time is required for the collection and
verification of records. Consequently, it can be said that there is no
unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing Ext.P1
detention order.
W.P(Crl). No.146 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:11417
8. As already mentioned, the main contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that some of the copies of the
relied-upon documents served on the detenu were illegible. To
substantiate the said contention, the copies of the relied upon
documents purportedly served on the detenu were also produced along
with the writ petition. In order to verify the correctness of the said
contention, we have examined the case file made available to us by the
learned Public Prosecutor. On verification, we are convinced that the
copies of some of the relied-upon documents, which find a place in the
case file itself, are not legible
9. 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 detenu to file an effective representation
before the Government as well as the Advisory Board is a constitutional
right guaranteed under Article 22(5) and also a statutory right.
Therefore, it is the duty of the detaining authority to ensure that the
copies of the impugned order, as well as the relied upon documents
which are furnished to the detenu at the time of effecting his arrest, are
legible and readable so as to enable him to approach the Advisory
Board as well as the Government, to make an effective representation.
W.P(Crl). No.146 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:11417
10. In the case at hand, it is established that copies of some of
the relied-upon documents supplied to 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 the KAA(P) Act, has wide ramifications as far as the
personal as well as the fundamental rights of an individual are
concerned. Therefore, the detaining authority should have acted with
much alacrity in ensuring that all the procedural formalities were
adhered to.
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order
of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur
is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Amith Sankar, 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, Kannur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.146 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:11417
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 146 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.DCTSR/11243/2025-C4 DATED 30.10.2025
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE .O.(RT). NO.
164/2026/HOME DATED 14.01.2026
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
14.11.2025 SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED
14.11.2025 EVIDENCING THE SENDING OF
EXT P3
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
14.11.2025 SUBMITTED BEFORE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT
EVIDENCING THE SENDING OF EXT P5
