Preventive detention quashed over unexplained delay and illegible documents; Kerala High Court orders police to countersign copies served on detenus

The petitioner, wife of the detenu Muhammed Thahir @ Kavu, challenged the detention order dated 24 September 2025 issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (“KAA(P)A”), and the Government confirmation order dated 11 February 2026 directing detention for one year.

The detention order relied on three criminal cases: Crime No. 475/2024, Crime No. 841/2025 and Crime No. 669/2025, the last alleged prejudicial activity having occurred on 12 July 2025; the detenu was arrested on 13 July 2025 and released on bail on 16 July 2025.

The sponsoring authority submitted its proposal on 27 August 2025, and the detention order was passed on 24 September 2025.

The detenu was ultimately arrested and detained on 5 December 2025 after the respondents asserted that he had evaded execution of the order.

The petitioner alleged, inter alia, unexplained delay in sponsoring and passing the detention order, supply of illegible relied-upon documents, non-compliance with Section 7, non-application of mind, and failure to consider the representation dated 19 March 2026.

The Court found the delay in processing the proposal and passing the detention order inadequately explained, and also found that material pages supplied to the detenu were illegible.

The Court applied Sections 3(1), 3(3), 7, 9 and 10(4) of the KAA(P)A, together with Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which requires that a detenu be furnished the grounds and material necessary to make an effective representation.

Preventive detention must maintain a “live and proximate link” between the prejudicial activity and the necessity for detention; unexplained or undue delay may snap that link.

The Court relied on T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, (1989) 4 SCC 741; Golam Hussain v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, (1974) 4 SCC 530; Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1979) 1 SCC 465; Licil Antony v. State of Kerala, (2014) 11 SCC 326; and Adishwar Jain v. Union of India, (2006) 11 SCC 339, for the principle that delay must be satisfactorily explained and assessed in the circumstances of each case.

It also relied on Anjana Das v. State of Kerala, 2026:KER:16817, concerning the requirement of promptitude in preventive-detention proceedings.

On illegible documents, the Court relied on Aleena Alex v. State of Kerala and Pramod Singla v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 374, which hold that furnishing illegible relied-upon documents prejudices the detenu’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5).

The Court held that the last alleged prejudicial activity occurred on 12 July 2025, but the proposal was submitted only on 27 August 2025, after a delay of 46 days, and the detention order was passed on 24 September 2025, 74 days after the alleged activity.

The respondents’ general reference to departmental movement and administrative processing did not specifically explain the time consumed at each stage.

Applying the live-and-proximate-link doctrine, the Court concluded that the cumulative unexplained delay undermined the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction and snapped the nexus between the alleged activity and the need for detention.

The Court further examined the copies supplied to the detenu and found pages 70, 71, 76, 91, 92, 93 and 108 illegible; pages 91–93 and 108 related to the last prejudicial activity and were therefore material to the detenu’s ability to understand and challenge the detention grounds.

The detenu’s acknowledgment that he received “legible copies” did not cure the defect, particularly because page 71 was objectively illegible and the State’s records raised serious doubt about the actual copies served.

These defects independently impaired the detenu’s Article 22(5) right.

In view of these findings, the Court considered it unnecessary to decide the remaining grounds.

It further held that the supply of illegible relied-upon documents deprived the detenu of an effective opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5).

The detention order dated 24 September 2025 and the consequential Government confirmation order dated 11 February 2026 were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, was directed to release Muhammed Thahir @ Kavu forthwith, unless his detention was required in connection with any other case; the Registry was directed to communicate the order immediately.