[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vilasini L vs State Of Kerala on 23 January, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:5617
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 3RD MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1754 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
VILASINI L.
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O JAYAKUMAR, SHEEJA BHAVANAM, ANAD,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695525
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
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
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695043
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, PIN - 695033
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR, THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 670004
W.P(Crl). No.1754 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:5617
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 23.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.1754 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:5617
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the mother of Akhil @ Unni ('detenu' for the
sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed
against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 26.09.2025 passed by the 2nd
respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for brevity).
2. The records reveal that, on 22.08.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram 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 goonda' as defined under Section 2(o)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act.
Altogether, five 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 considered, the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1216/2025 of
Nedumangad Police Station, alleging the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 8 and 22(b) of the NDPS Act.
4. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing
W.P(Crl). No.1754 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:5617
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 is 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 copy of the relied-upon documents
served on the detenu, some of the documents 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. The learned counsel
further contended that there is an inordinate delay in mooting the
proposal as well as in passing the detention order, and the said delay
would certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity
and the purpose of detention. On these premises, 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. The learned
W.P(Crl). No.1754 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:5617
Public Prosecutor further asserted that there is no unreasonable delay
either in mooting the proposal or in passing Ext.P1 detention order
after the commission of the last prejudicial activity. However, some
minimal delay is inevitable while passing a detention order, especially
when it is the duty of the authority to ensure adherence to the natural
justice principles while passing such an order and hence, no
interference is warranted in the impugned order.
7. While considering the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, regarding the delay that occurred in submitting the
proposal for detention and in passing the order, it cannot be ignored
that an order under Section 3(1) of KAA(P) Act has a significant impact
on the personal as well as fundamental rights of an individual. So such
an order cannot be passed in a casual manner instead, it can only be
passed on credible materials after arriving at the requisite objective
and subjective satisfaction. Furthermore, there exists no inflexible rule
requiring a detention order to be issued within a specific time frame
following the last prejudicial act. However, when there is undue delay in
making the proposal and passing the detention order, the same would
undermine its validity particularly when no convincing or plausible
explanation is offered for the delay.
8. In T.A.Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, [(1989) 4 SCC
741], the Apex Court held that the question whether the prejudicial
W.P(Crl). No.1754 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:5617
activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is
proximate to the time when the order is made or the live link between
the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast
rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all
circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down on that
behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical
test by merely counting the number of months between the offending
acts and the order of detention. However, when there is an undue and
long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of the
detention order, the court has to scrutinize whether the detaining
authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a
tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has
occasioned when called upon to answer and further the court has to
investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the
circumstances of each case.
9. Keeping in mind the above principles, while coming to the
facts in the present case, it can be seen that the case registered against
the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.1216/2025 of Nedumangad Police Station, alleging the commission
of offences punishable under Sections 8 and 22(b). The incident that
led to the registration of the last prejudicial activity occurred on
25.06.205, and he was arrested on the same day. Subsequently, he was
W.P(Crl). No.1754 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:5617
granted bail on 17.09.2025. The records further reveal that the District
Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, submitted the proposal to the
competent authority for initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of
the KAA(P) Act on 22.08.2025, while the detenu was under judicial
custody. As the detenu was under judicial custody, there was no basis
for any apprehension regarding the repetition of criminal activities by
him. Therefore, the short delay that occurred in mooting the proposal
after the date of last prejudicial activity is of no serious consequence
and hence, the contention of the petitioner that the live link between
the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the detention order is
snapped cannot be sustained.
10. As already mentioned, the main grievance of the petitioner
is that the copies of the relied-upon documents served on the detenu
were illegible. In order to verify the veracity 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, are not
legible. Moreover, a perusal of the representation made by the detenu
before the Advisory Board, reveals that in the said representation also it
is mentioned that the copies of the some of the relied-upon documents
furnished to him are not legible and hence he is handicapped from filing
an effective representation.
W.P(Crl). No.1754 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:5617
11. 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 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.
12. In the case at hand, it is established that copies of some of
the relied-upon documents 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. Therefore, the detaining authority should have acted with
much alacrity in ensuring that all the procedural formalities were
adhered to.
13. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order
W.P(Crl). No.1754 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2026:KER:5617
of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur,
is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Akhil @ Unni, 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, Viyyur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.1754 of 2025 :: 10 ::
2026:KER:5617
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1754 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCTVM/14484/2025-C1 DATED 26.09.2025
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
30.10.2025 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT
EVIDENCING THE EXT P2
