[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Saudabi Thacharamban vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:12954
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 183 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SAUDABI THACHARAMBAN
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O ABDUL KAREEM, THADATHIL VEEDU,
THAZHECHINA, TIRURANGADI , MALAPURAM,
PIN - 676306
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 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
W.P(Crl). No.183 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:12954
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
HIGH SECURITY PRISON, VIYYUR, PIN - 670004
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.183 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:12954
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the wife of Abdul Kareem @ Thadathil Kareem
('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition
is directed against Ext.P1 detention order dated 11.11.2025 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
23.01.2026, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a
period of six months from the date of execution of the order.
2. The records reveal that, on 18.09.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, 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,
four 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.854/2025 of Thanur Police
Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections
126(1), 309(6), 311, 312, r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for
W.P(Crl). No.183 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:12954
short "BNS").
4. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P1 detention 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 Government as
well as 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 Government
Pleader, submitted that the detention order was passed after proper
application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well
as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government
Pleader, 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 learned Government Pleader
W.P(Crl). No.183 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:12954
sought an order dismissing the writ petition.
7. As evident from the records, altogether four cases in which
the 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.854/2025
of Thanur Police Station, alleging the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 126(1), 309(6), 311, 312, r/w 3(5) of the
BNS. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred
on 14.08.2025. The detenu, who was arrayed as the 1st accused in the
said case, was arrested on 23.08.2025, and since then, he has been
under judicial custody. It was on 18.09.2025 that the District Police
Chief forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the
KAA(P) Act against the detenu, and finally, the detention order was
passed on 11.11.2025. 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, four 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.
8. As already mentioned, the main contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that some of the copies of the
W.P(Crl). No.183 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:12954
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. On perusal of the said documents, we are
satisfied that some copies of certain documents are illegible. However,
in order to conclusively ascertain whether the copies furnished to the
detenu were indeed illegible, we have also examined the original case
file made available to us by the learned Government Pleader. 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.
10. In the case at hand, it is established that copies of some of
W.P(Crl). No.183 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:12954
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 High Security Prison,
Viyyur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Abdul Kareem @ Thadathil
Kareem, 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 High Security Prison, Viyyur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.183 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:12954
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 183 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCMPM/12780/2023-S1 DATED 11.11.2025
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE
G.O(RT).NO.305/2026/HOME DATED
23.01.2026
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
22.11.2025 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 . A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
22.11.2025 SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST
RESPONDENT
