Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the preventive detention order under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAPA), and directed the immediate release of the detenu. The Court held that furnishing illegible documents and the delay in meaningfully considering the representation violated constitutional safeguards and statutory mandates, vitiating the detention order.
Facts
The petitioner, the mother of the detenu, challenged a detention order passed under KAAPA labelling her son as a “known rowdy” based on four cases registered between 2020 and 2024, including charges under IPC, Arms Act, and BNS. The last incident was on 04.12.2024, with the detenu arrested and bailed on 07.12.2024. The detention proposal was submitted on 26.12.2024, and the detention order was issued on 04.02.2025. Representations highlighting that documents provided were illegible were submitted on 28.02.2025, but these grievances were not meaningfully addressed.
Issues
- Whether the detention order is vitiated by non-supply of legible documents under Section 7(2) of KAAPA.
- Whether the delay in considering the detenu’s representation invalidates the detention.
- Whether the detention maintains a “live link” with prejudicial activities.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended:
- The detention order was passed mechanically without due application of mind.
- Documents provided to the detenu were illegible, depriving him of making an effective representation.
- There was unexplained delay of two months from the last alleged incident to the detention order and eight days in execution.
- The representations raising these concerns were not meaningfully considered, rendering the right to representation illusory.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued:
- The detention was issued after compliance with legal formalities and providing necessary documents.
- The delay was reasonable given the factual circumstances and did not snap the “live link.”
- The detenu had acknowledged receipt of documents and had the opportunity to make representations.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed:
- Section 7(2) of KAAPA, requiring provision of legible documents to enable effective representation.
- Pramod Singla v. Union of India (2023 INSC 344): Illegible documents prejudice the right to representation under Article 22(5).
- T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala ((1989) 4 SCC 741): The test of proximity in preventive detention cases is contextual, not mechanical.
- State of Manipur v. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan (2022 INSC 1115) and Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India ((1980) 2 SCC 270): Denial of effective representation due to non-supply of readable documents vitiates detention.
- Ayya v. State of UP ((1989) 1 SCC 374): Preventive detention laws must strictly comply with procedural safeguards.
Precedent Analysis
- Pramod Singla: Illegible documents violate the right to effective representation.
- T.A. Abdul Rahman: Proximity test must consider factual circumstances, but unexplained delays can vitiate detention.
- Buyamayum Abdul Hanan & Ramchandra Kamat: Effective representation requires readable documents.
- Ayya v. State of UP: Procedural safeguards in detention cases are non-negotiable.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found:
- Pages 14–19 of the documents provided to the detenu were illegible, making effective representation impossible.
- The representations raising these concerns were disposed of perfunctorily without addressing the grievance.
- Delay was contextually assessed and found relevant to the prejudice caused.
- Denial of effective representation due to illegible documents and inadequate consideration vitiated the detention order.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court:
- Quashed the detention order under KAAPA.
- Directed the immediate release of the detenu unless required in another case.
- Held that procedural safeguards are integral to liberty and cannot be bypassed.
Implications
- Reinforces strict compliance with procedural safeguards under preventive detention laws.
- Establishes that illegible documents vitiate detention due to prejudice in making representations.
- Underscores that liberty cannot be curtailed through mechanical procedures under the guise of preventive detention.
Short Note on Cases Referred
- Pramod Singla: Illegible documents prejudice representation rights.
- T.A. Abdul Rahman: Contextual proximity test for detention.
- Buyamayum Abdul Hanan & Ramchandra Kamat: Non-supply of readable documents invalidates detention.
- Ayya v. State of UP: Strict procedural safeguards are essential in preventive detention.
FAQs
1. Does preventive detention require furnishing of legible documents?
Yes, legible documents are essential for the detenu to exercise the constitutional right to make an effective representation.
2. Can preventive detention be quashed due to delays in considering representation?
Yes, unexplained or perfunctory disposal of representations can vitiate detention orders.
3. What is the “live link” principle in preventive detention?
There must be proximity between prejudicial activities and the detention order; unreasonable delays can break this link.
