SOFI SANAL vs STATE OF KERALA

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-1-
2026:KER:68096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
TUESDAY, THE 8 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 17TH BHADRA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 606 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
SOFI SANAL
AGED 28 YEARS
W/O MOHAMMED TAHIR, SOFIYA MANZIL, CHERUKUNNAM,
VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695141
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.
SMT.THAHZIN T.
RESPONDENT/S:
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

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-2-
2026:KER:68096
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR, PIN - 670004
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP-O.A. NURIYA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-3-
2026:KER:68096
J U D G M E N T
th
Dated this the 8 day of September, 2026
Soumen Sen, C. J.
This writ petition is filed by the wife of the detenu, Shri.
Muhammed Thahir @Kavu challenging detention order dated
th
24 September, 2025 under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P)A, for short]
th
and Ext.P2 Government Confirmation order dated 11
February 2026, by which the detention order was
subsequently confirmed.
2. The process leading to the issuance of the detention
order commenced with the proposal submitted by the District
Police Chief, Thiruvanthapuram Rural, who, in his capacity
th
as the Sponsoring Authority, forwarded the report dated 27
August, 2025 to the detaining authority recommending action
under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P)A. The detaining authority
th
issued the detention order dated 24 September, 2025 under
the KAA(P)A for a period of 1 year. Thus, the detenu was
th
arrested on 5 December 2025 and he was detained in the

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-4-
2026:KER:68096
Central Prison, Viyyur.
3. A perusal of the detention order reveals that it is
founded on three criminal cases involving the detenu, namely
Crime No. 475 of 2024 of Anchethengu Police Station,
registered for offences punishable under Sections 115(2),
296(b), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
(‘BNS’, for short). In the said crime the detenu was
2023
th
arrested on 27 July 2024.
4. The second Crime relied on by the detaining
authority is Crime No. 841 of 2025 of Varkkala Police Station,
registered under Section 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), and
3(5) of the BNS. In the said crime, the detenu was arrested on
th
26 May 2025.
5. The third Crime that is the last prejudicial activity
relied on by the detaining authority is Crime No. 669/2025 of
Anchethengu Police Station, registered under Section 296(b),
126(2), 118(1), 118(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. In the said crime,
th
the detenu was arrested on 13 July 2025 and bail was
th
granted on 16 July 2025 to the detenu in CMP No.

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-5-
2026:KER:68096
5887/2025 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Varkkala and the investigation is under process.
6. On a consideration of the materials placed on record,
th
it appears that the impugned detention order dated 24
September 2025 is the second detention order issued against
the detenu. The detenu had earlier undergone detention
under the KAA(P)A for a period of 6 months as per the
th th
detention order dated 4 May 2023 and was released on 5
November 2023.
7. The Government approved the impugned detention
th
order on 16 December 2025. The case was thereafter
referred to the Advisory Board under Section 9 of the
KAA(P)A. The Advisory Board, after considering the relevant
records and hearing the detenu, reported that there was
sufficient cause for his detention. The Government thereafter
considered the matter afresh, including the relevant records,
the opinion of the Advisory Board and the representation
submitted by the detenu, and confirmed the detention under
Section 10(4) of the KAA(P)A by Government Confirmation
th
order dated 11 February,2026, directing that the detenu be

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-6-
2026:KER:68096
continued in detention for a period of one year.
8. The first contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the mandatory requirements under Section
7 of the KAA(P)A have not been complied with. According to
the learned counsel, the records do not disclose that the
detention order was duly read over to the detenu or that he
was informed in writing, under acknowledgment, of his right
to make a representation to the Government and before the
Advisory Board. It was submitted that no material was
produced along with the detention proceedings to establish
due compliance with the statutory requirements.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that several
pages of the documents supplied to the detenu along with the
detention order, particularly pages 70, 71, 76, 91, 92, 93 and
108, were illegible. According to the learned counsel, the
supply of illegible copies of relied-upon documents deprived
the detenu of an effective opportunity to make a
representation against the detention order and thereby
caused serious prejudice to him.

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-7-
2026:KER:68096
10. The learned counsel also submitted that the
detention order suffers from non-application of mind. It was
contended that preventive detention is intended to prevent a
person from indulging in prejudicial activities in future and
that, in the facts of the present case, there was no real or
proximate possibility of the detenu indulging in such
activities so as to warrant preventive detention.
11. The learned counsel also contended that the
requirements under Section 3(3) of the KAA(P)A had not been
complied with. According to the petitioner, the detention
order and the connected records ought to have been
forwarded to the Government and the Director General of
Police in accordance with the statutory mandate. Reliance
was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
1
Hetchin Haokip v. State of Manipur and Others .
12. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned
detention order is the second preventive detention of the
detenu and that the three cases relied upon for the impugned
detention cannot legitimately justify the invocation of the
1
(2018) 9 SCC 562

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-8-
2026:KER:68096
extraordinary power of preventive detention. It was contended
that Crime No.475/2024 and Crime No.841/2025 arose out
of disputes relating to monetary transactions and were
essentially personal in nature, without any element of
disturbance of public order.
13. With regard to Crime No.669/2025, which
constitutes the last prejudicial activity, the learned counsel
th
pointed out that the alleged occurrence was on 12 July 2025
th
and the detenu was arrested on 13 July 2025. It was
submitted that the said case was under investigation and
that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot, by itself,
justify preventive detention.
14. The learned counsel further challenged the
th
Government confirmation order dated 11 February 2026 on
the ground that the maximum period of one year had been
imposed without assigning any specific reason for imposing
the maximum permissible period of detention.
15. The learned counsel further contended that there
was a delay of 42 days in sponsoring the detenu after his

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-9-
2026:KER:68096
release in connection with the last prejudicial activity and
considerable delay in passing the detention order. It was
submitted that there was also a delay of about two months
and twelve days in executing the detention order. According
to the petitioner, the said delays remained unexplained and
had snapped the live and proximate link between the alleged
prejudicial activity and the necessity for preventive detention.
16. Lastly, the Learned counsel submitted that the
th
representation dated 19 March 2026 submitted by the
petitioner on behalf of the detenu before the first respondent
had not been disposed of or its result have not been
communicated to the detenu or the petitioner. It was
contended that such failure seriously prejudiced the detenu's
right to have his representation considered in accordance
with law.
17. On the above grounds, learned counsel for the
th
petitioner submitted that the detention order dated 24
September 2025 and the Government confirmation order
th
dated 11 February 2026 are illegal and unsustainable and
that the detenu is entitled to be released from detention.

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-10-
2026:KER:68096
18. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents supported the impugned
detention order and submitted that the same was passed by
the competent authority after due consideration of the
criminal antecedents and subsequent activities of the detenu.
19. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted
that the detenu is a habitual offender and had been involved
in several criminal cases from 2017 onwards. It was
contended that the earlier preventive detention had failed to
th
deter him and that, after his release on 5 November 2023 he
again became involved in three criminal cases. According to
the respondents, the subsequent criminal activities
demonstrated a continuing propensity to indulge in anti-
social activities.
20. The learned Senior Government Pleader placed
reliance on the earlier detention proceedings. It was
th
submitted that the first detention order dated 4 May 2023
had been challenged before this Court in W.P.(Crl.)
No.805/2023 and that the said writ petition was dismissed
th
on 20 October 2023.According to the respondents, the

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-11-
2026:KER:68096
grounds relating to delay, reporting of the detention order
and sufficiency of bail conditions had already been
considered and rejected by this Court.
21. It was submitted that the three subsequent cases,
namely Crime Nos.475/2024, 841/2025 and 669/2025, were
sufficient material for initiating fresh proceedings under the
KAA(P)A. The learned Senior Government Pleader contended
that the fact that the detenu had already undergone
preventive detention did not create any bar against a
subsequent detention order when fresh prejudicial activities
were committed after his release.
22. With regard to the allegation of non-compliance with
Section 7 of the KAA(P)A, the learned Senior Government
Pleader submitted that the allegation is contrary to the
records. It was submitted that the detention order was read
over to the detenu, its contents were explained to him in
Malayalam, and he was informed in writing of his right to
make a representation before the Government and the
Advisory Board. It was further submitted that the detenu had
acknowledged receipt of the detention order and the

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-12-
2026:KER:68096
connected records.
23. The respondents also disputed the allegation that the
documents supplied to the detenu were illegible. According to
the learned Senior Government Pleader, legible copies of the
entire records relied upon for passing the detention order had
been furnished to the detenu and acknowledgments had been
obtained. It was therefore submitted that the allegation
regarding illegibility was factually incorrect and that no
prejudice had been caused to the detenu.
24. As regards the alleged delay in passing the detention
order, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that
the last prejudicial activity relied upon against the detenu
th
was on 12 July 2025 and that the detention order was
th
passed on 24 September 2025 approximately 70 days
thereafter. According to the respondents, the proceedings
were actively pursued during the intervening period and there
was no inordinate or unexplained delay.
25. With regard to the delay in execution, it was
submitted that the detenu had absconded and was evading

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-13-
2026:KER:68096
execution of the detention order. The respondents therefore
contended that the delay in execution could not be attributed
to the authorities. It was pointed out that proceedings under
Section 6 of the KAA(P)A had been initiated and a
proclamation order had been issued before the detenu was
th
ultimately apprehended on 5 December 2025.
26. The learned Senior Government Pleader further
submitted that the Government had approved the detention
order within eight days of its execution, excluding public
holidays, and that the order of confirmation was passed
within the prescribed period. According to the respondents,
there was no delay at any stage of the detention proceedings
so as to snap the live and proximate link between the
prejudicial activities and the necessity for detention.
27. As regards the contention of non-application of mind,
the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the
proposal of the sponsoring authority was subjected to the
necessary verification and consideration by the competent
detaining authority. It was contended that the records clearly
disclose that the detaining authority was satisfied that the

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-14-
2026:KER:68096
criminal antecedents of the detenu demonstrated a likelihood
of his continuing to indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial
to public peace and order.
28. It was further submitted that the detenu had
continued to commit criminal activities even after his earlier
preventive detention and had become involved in three
further cases. According to the respondents, the involvement
of the detenu in those cases was revealed from the
statements of the complainants and the investigation
conducted in the respective cases.
29. The learned Senior Government Pleader also
submitted that the Advisory Board had considered the matter
and reported that there was sufficient cause for detention.
The Government, after considering the opinion of the
Advisory Board, the relevant records and the representation
submitted by the detenu, confirmed the detention for a period
of one year. It was therefore contended that the statutory
safeguards had been duly followed.
30. Finally, it was submitted that, if the detenu were

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-15-
2026:KER:68096
released prematurely, there was a likelihood of his again
becoming involved in anti-social activities affecting public
peace and safety. According to the respondents, his
continued detention was therefore necessary for maintenance
of public order and public peace. The learned Senior
Government Pleader accordingly submitted that the writ
petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
31. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
32. We shall first deal with the contention regarding the
alleged delay in passing the order of detention. According to
the petitioner, there was inordinate delay between the last
prejudicial activity attributed to the detenu and the issuance
of the detention order. It is contended that such delay has the
effect of snapping the live and proximate link between the
prejudicial activities relied upon and the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority.
33. It is well settled that the prejudicial activities relied
upon must bear a live and proximate nexus with the order of

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-16-
2026:KER:68096
detention. If there is undue and unexplained delay in passing
the detention order, such delay may, in a given case, have the
effect of snapping the nexus between the prejudicial activities
and the purpose sought to be achieved by the detention. At
the same time, where the delay is satisfactorily explained by
the time consumed in investigation, collection of materials,
administrative processing, scrutiny by the sponsoring and
screening authorities and consideration by the Government,
the detention order cannot be invalidated merely on the
ground of lapse of time.
34. To ascertain whether the live and proximate link gets
snapped, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
2
Supreme Court in T.A Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala
wherein the Apex Court has reiterated an observation in
3
Golam Hussain v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta as
follows:-
“10 . The conspectus of the above decisions can be
summarised thus: The question whether the prejudicial
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
2
(1989) 4 SCC 741
3
(1974) 4 SCC 530

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-17-
2026:KER:68096
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 in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is
not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of
months between the offending acts and the order of
detention. However, when there is undue and long delay
between the prejudicial activities and the passing of
detention order, the court has to scrutinise 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.”

(emphasis supplied)
35. In Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of
4
Tamil Nadu , the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the
phrase “live and proximate link” in the following words:
6. “It is further true that there must be a “live and
proximate link” between the grounds of detention alleged by
the detaining authority and the avowed purpose of
detention, namely the prevention of smuggling activities. We
may in appropriate cases assume that the link is “snapped”
if there is a long and unexplained delay between the date
of the order of detention and the arrest of the detenu. In
such a case, we may strike down an order of detention
unless the grounds indicate a fresh application of the mind
of the detaining authority to the new situation and the
changed circumstances. But where the delay is not only
adequately explained but is found to be the result of the
recalcitrant or refractory conduct of the detenu in evading
4 (1979) 1 SCC 465

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-18-
2026:KER:68096
arrest, there is warrant to consider the “link” not snapped
but strengthened.”
(emphasis supplied)
36. As regards the contention relating to the
question of delay it is relevant to refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Licil Antony v. State of
5
Kerala wherein it was observed as follows:
“ 9. While dealing with the question of delay in
making an order of detention, the court is required to be
circumspect and has to take a pragmatic view. No hard-and-
fast formula is possible to be laid or has been laid in this
regard. However, one thing is clear that in case of delay,
that has to be satisfactorily explained. After all, the purpose
of preventive detention is to take immediate steps for
preventing the detenu from indulging in prejudicial
activity. If there is undue and long delay between the
prejudicial activity and making of the order of detention and
the delay has not been explained, the order of detention
becomes vulnerable. Delay in issuing the order of detention,
if not satisfactorily explained, itself is a ground to quash the
order of detention. No rule with precision has been
formulated in this regard. The test of proximity is not a rigid
or a mechanical test. In case of undue and long delay the
court has to investigate whether the link has been broken in
the circumstances of each case.”
(emphasis supplied)
5
(2014) 11 SCC 326

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-19-
2026:KER:68096
37. Similarly in Adishwar Jain v. Union of
6
India , it was held as follows:
“15. Delay, as is well known, at both stages has to be
explained. The court is required to consider the question
having regard to the overall picture. We may notice that
in Sk. Serajul v. State of W.B. [(1975) 2 SCC 78: 1975 SCC
(Cri) 425] this Court opined: (SCC p. 80, para 2)
“There was thus delay at both stages and
this delay, unless satisfactorily explained,
would throw considerable doubt on the
genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the
District Magistrate, Burdwan recited in the order
of detention. It would be reasonable to assume
that if the District Magistrate of Burdwan was
really and genuinely satisfied after proper
application of mind to the materials before him
that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with
a view to preventing him from acting in a
prejudicial manner, he would have acted with
greater promptitude both in making the order of
detention as also in securing the arrest of the
petitioner, and the petitioner would not have been
allowed to remain at large for such a long period
of time to carry on his nefarious activities.”
(emphasis supplied)
38. This Court in Anjana Das v. State of
7
Kerala , has reiterated that lack of promptitude may
vitiate a detention order . It was held as follows:
“11. If the jurisdictional authority had a bona fide
apprehension regarding the repetition of anti-social
activities, it would have acted swiftly after the receipt of the
6 (2006) 11 SCC 339
7 2026:KER:16817

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-20-
2026:KER:68096
proposal, as well as the screening committee’s report. If the
true objective was to prevent the detenu from engaging in
anti-social activities, the authority ought to have acted
with greater alacrity in passing the detention order.
Therefore, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is
that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and
the purpose of detention has been snapped.”
(emphasis supplied)
39. We have carefully perused the records
produced before us. It is evident from the materials on record
that the last prejudicial activity relied upon by the detaining
th
authority is Crime No.669/2025 dated 12 July 2025. The
detenu was arrested on the following day and was enlarged on
th
bail on 16 July 2025. Thereafter, the Sponsoring Authority
th
submitted a proposal dated 27 August 2025, recommending
preventive detention of the detenu under the provisions of the
KAA(P)A. Upon consideration of the said proposal and the
materials placed before it, the detaining authority passed the
th
detention order dated 24 September 2025. The said detention
order was subsequently confirmed by the Government by order
th
dated 11 February 2026, whereby the detenu was directed to
be detained for a period of one year.

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-21-
2026:KER:68096
40. The materials placed before us disclose
considerable delay at every stage of the proceedings. The
th
impugned detention order dated 24 September 2025 came to
be passed 74 days after the last alleged prejudicial activity
th
dated 12 July 2025 in Crime No.669/2025. The sponsoring
th
authority had submitted the proposal dated 27 August 2025
with a delay of 46 days. The explanation offered by the
detaining authority in the detention order does not
satisfactorily explain the delay.
41. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the
unexplained delay of 74 days from the last prejudicial activity
and the delay of 46 days for the submission of the proposal,
we are of the considered view that the live and proximate link
between the alleged prejudicial activities and the necessity for
preventive detention stands snapped. Consequently, the
subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority
cannot be sustained.
42. We have already discussed the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.A. Abdul Rahman
(supra), Licil Antony (supra), Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-22-
2026:KER:68096
(supra), Adishwar Jain (supra) and the aforesaid principles
have also been applied by this Court in Anjana Das (supra),
wherein it has been consistently held that, although no rigid
period is prescribed for passing an order of preventive
detention, every substantial period of delay must be
satisfactorily explained and the Court must examine whether
the live and proximate nexus between the prejudicial activities
and the purpose of detention has been maintained. In the
present case, the explanation offered by the respondents is
only a broad reference to the movement of the proposal
through various departmental authorities. No material has
been placed before this Court explaining the necessity for the
considerable time consumed at each stage of the proceedings.
The chronology of events reveals unexplained intervals in
processing the proposal even after the Sponsoring Authority
had initiated preventive detention proceedings and after the
detenu had been released on bail. In the absence of any specific
and convincing explanation for such delay, we are unable to
hold that the respondents have discharged the burden cast
upon them under law.

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-23-
2026:KER:68096
43. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the considered view that the delay in
passing the detention order has not been satisfactorily
explained. The unexplained delay has the effect of snapping
the live and proximate nexus between the alleged prejudicial
activities and the subjective satisfaction recorded by the
detaining authority. Consequently, the detention order is
rendered unsustainable. Accordingly, we hold that the delay in
submitting the proposal and the subsequent delay in passing
the detention order have not been satisfactorily explained.
44. On the ground of non-supply of legible copies
to the detenu, it was submitted by the petitioner that, at the
time of execution of the detention order, although copies of the
relevant documents were furnished to the detenu, pages 70,
71, 76, 91, 92, 93 and 108 of the documents supplied by the
sponsoring authority were illegible, thereby depriving the
detenu of an effective opportunity to make a representation
against the order of detention.

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-24-
2026:KER:68096
45. This Court while considering a similar issue,
8
in Aleena Alex v. State of Kerala and Ors , has held as
follows:
8. “…..As rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, and as is apparent from the
original documents produced before us pursuant to our
direction in a sealed cover, certain pages of the Exhibit P1
order that had been furnished to the detenu were illegible
and could not be read. The specific reference made by the
learned counsel to page Nos.33, 34 and 35 of Exhibit P1 in
the W.P.(Crl.) being illegible and unreadable is found to be
factually correct upon our perusal of the original records
produced before us. It is trite and settled that unless a
legible copy is provided to the detenu, he may not be able to
exercise his right to respond to the same by way of a
representation/explanation validly and adequately.
Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner
on the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court
in this respect is valid and tenable…..”
46. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
9
Pramod Singla v. Union of India , has held that:
“34. In cases where illegible documents have been supplied
to the detenue, a grave prejudice is caused to the detenue
in availing his right to send a representation to the relevant
authorities, because the detenue, while submitting his
representation, does not have clarity on the grounds of his
or her detention. In such a circumstance, the relief under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the relevant
statutory provisions allowing for submitting a
representation are vitiated, since no man can defend
himself against an unknown threat.”
(emphasis supplied)
8
Judgment dated 5th day of June 2026 in WP(Crl.) No. 599 of 2026
9
2023 SCC OnLine SC 374

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-25-
2026:KER:68096
47. However, in order to verify the correctness of
the contention that the copies of the relied-upon documents
served on the detenu are illegible, we have perused the pages
made available before us (Exhibit P1) by the learned counsel
for the petitioner. On such perusal, we are satisfied that the
copies of the pages 70, 71, 76, 91, 92, 93 and 108 were found
to be illegible. However, it is to be seen that, contents in pages
91, 92, 93 and 108 are material documents concerning the last
prejudicial activity relied upon by the detaining authority,
thereby depriving the detenu of an effective opportunity to
understand the material relied upon by the Detaining
Authority and to make an effective representation against the
order of detention as guaranteed under Article 22(5) and Article
47 of the Constitution of India.
48. The learned Senior Senior Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the State has produced a file
which apparently contains the original documents supplied to
the alleged detenu. It is submitted that each page of the file
bears the signature of the detenu with the endorsement “legible
copies received”. However, at page 71 of the original file,

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-26-
2026:KER:68096
though the same endorsement is made, the document is
indisputably illegible. If this document is compared with the
corresponding document in the file produced earlier, it would
be seen that the latter is legible. Hence, a serious doubt is
raised as to whether legible copies of the documents were in
fact served on the detenu, notwithstanding the strenuous
submission made today, with reference to the file produced,
that the detenu had received legible copies.
49. In fact, the detenu had made a
th
representation on 19 March 2026. The affidavit filed by the
State does not deny the allegations made in the said
representation or state that the same are untrue. In fact, till
th
the filing of the affidavit on 14 July 2026, there had been no
consideration of the representation. The affidavit is also silent
th
with regard to the representation dated 19 March 2026
received by the authorities concerned. It has not been alleged
in the said affidavit that no such representation was received
by the authorities concerned.
50. In any event, serious doubts have been
raised with regard to the supply of legible copies of the

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-27-
2026:KER:68096
documents, and we are satisfied that the document referred to
above is not legible when compared with the document in the
file produced earlier. In the circumstances we should give the
benefit of doubt to the detenu.
51. We also notice that, in several matters before
us, allegations are being raised regarding the supply of illegible
copies of documents to detenus. Henceforth, the Police
authorities shall, while supplying copies of documents to the
alleged detenu, put a counter-signature on each copy of the
document supplied, in addition to obtaining the signature of
the detenu, so as to obviate future controversies regarding the
supply of illegible copies of documents by the authorities
concerned. This is necessary to ensure compliance with Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India.
52. In view of the aforesaid findings, we do not
consider it necessary to examine the other issues raised by the
petitioner. We hold that the detaining authority has failed to
furnish a satisfactory explanation for the considerable delay in
processing the proposal and issuing the detention order after
the last prejudicial activity. The unexplained delay has

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-28-
2026:KER:68096
snapped the live and proximate nexus between the alleged
prejudicial activities and the subjective satisfaction recorded
by the detaining authority. Further, the supply of illegible
copies of the relied-upon documents has deprived the detenu
of his valuable constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India to make an effective representation
against the order of detention.
53. Consequently, the detention order is vitiated
and is liable to be set aside.
54. Accordingly, the detention order (Ext.P1)
th
dated 24 September, 2025 and the consequential
th
Government Confirmation Order (Ext.P2) dated 11 February,
2026 are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
55. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Viyyur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Muhammed
Thahir @Kavu, if his detention is not required in connection
with any other case.

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-29-
2026:KER:68096
56. The Registry is directed to communicate this
order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur,
forthwith.
Sd/-
SOUMEN SEN,
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V. M.,
JUDGE
Eb

CNR : KLHC010281102026
W.P. (Crl.) No. 606 of 2026
-30-
2026:KER:68096
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 606 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCTVM/14471/2025-C1 DATED 24.09.2025
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE
G.O(RT).NO.517/2026/HOME DATED
11.02.2026
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.03.2026 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT
EVIDENCING THE EXT P3