Preventive detention quashed after Kannada-speaking detainee was not given the order and relied-on documents in a language he understood

The petitioner, the wife of Ibrahim Kalandhar @ K. Ibrahim, challenged his preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (“KAA(P) Act”). The detention order relied on six criminal cases and was issued while he was in judicial custody; it was later confirmed by the Government and continued for six months.

The petitioner contended that the detenue knew only Kannada but was supplied the detention order and relied-on documents in Malayalam, without Kannada translations. The State maintained that their contents had been explained to him in a language he understood.

Whether failure to supply the detention order and relied-on documents in a language understood by the detenue violated his right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and invalidated the detention

Whether the detention order was invalid because it verbatim reproduced the sponsoring report, or because some documents supplied to the detenue were illegible

Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires that the grounds of detention be effectively communicated to the detenue in a language he understands, so that he can make a meaningful representation; oral explanation alone is insufficient.

The Court relied on Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, AIR 1969 SC 43, and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 427, for this requirement, and on Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 502, which reaffirmed that a detenue must receive the grounds in a language he understands and, if literate, a script he can read.

Section 7(2) of the KAA(P) Act also provides for the detenue’s right to make a representation against the detention.

The sponsoring report and detention order recorded that the detenue was from Karnataka, resided in a linguistic-minority area, and knew Kannada. On examining the detention file, the Court found no evidence that Kannada translations of the detention order or relied-on documents had been supplied, or that the detenue had acknowledged receiving them.

The State’s assertion that the contents were explained orally did not satisfy Article 22(5), because effective communication requires written material in a language the detenue understands.

The Court rejected the separate challenge that the detention order merely reproduced the sponsoring report, finding independent consideration of the material.

It also found no illegibility in the supplied documents, but held that this did not cure the failure to provide them in Kannada.

It allowed the petition, set aside the detention and continued-detention orders (Exts. P2 and P4), and directed the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, to release the detenue forthwith unless his detention was required in another case.