Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 11.02.2025 passed against one Shins Augustine, S/o. Augustine (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘PITNDPS Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. The detention order, which is under challenge in this petition, was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 29.04.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that on 07.11.2024, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Idukki, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, ten cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority while passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.46/2024 of the Excise Range Office, Thodupuzha, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act.

3. We have heard Smt.Sai Pooja, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. It was further submitted that the copies of some of the relied upon documents served on the detenu are illegible and, hence, the detenu was incapacitated from filing an effective representation before the Advisory Board. According to the learned counsel, the non-service of readable copies of all the relied-upon documents itself is a ground that will vitiate the impugned order. On these premises, it was urged that Ext.P1 detention order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order after being fully satisfied that such an order is the only remedy to restrain the detenu from engaging in further criminal activities. According to the learned Government Pleader, the copies of all the relied-upon documents were duly served on the detenu and the contention of the petitioner that he was incapacitated from filing an effective representation before the Advisory Board is absolutely baseless. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P1 detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, warrants no interference.

6. As revealed from the records, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in drug peddling activities that the sponsoring authority mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act against the detenu. Altogether, ten cases in which the detenu was involved have formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.46/2024 of Excise Range Office, Thodupuzha, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act.

7. In the above-said case, the detenu, who is arrayed as the sole accused, was caught red-handed with the contraband on 08.10.2024. Later it was on 07.01.2025, he was released on bail. It was on 07.11.2024, while the detenu was under judicial custody, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was mooted. A perusal of the records further reveals that after the receipt of the proposal, the Government had placed the same before the screening committee for its opinion. The screening committee, after considering the proposal, filed a report expressing its opinion that it is a fit case to preventively detain the detenu. The said report was received by the Government on 17.01.2025. It was on 11.02.2025, the detention order was passed. The sequence of the events narrated above clearly reveals that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order.

8. As already stated, Ext.P1 detention order was passed while the detenu was on bail in the case registered against him with respect to the last prejudicial activity. In the impugned order itself, the fact that the detenu was released on bail in the case registered against him with respect to the last prejudicial activity is specifically adverted to. Likewise, in the impugned order, it is stated that the criminal antecedents of the detenu show that he may likely to violate those conditions and there is a high propensity that the detenu will indulge in drug peddling activities in the future. A holistic reading of the impugned order further reveals that the act of the detenu violating the bail conditions and being involved in criminal activities is one of the materials which the jurisdictional authority relied on to enter into a subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order. Therefore, it is evident that the jurisdictional authority had duly considered the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail to him, and that it was after being satisfied that those conditions are insufficient to deter the detenu from being involved in criminal activities, that the Ext.P1 order was passed.

9. As already mentioned, one of the main contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that some of the copies of the relied-upon documents served on the detenu are not legible and hence he was handicapped from filing an effective representation before the Government. In order to verify the veracity of the said contention, we have examined the case file made available to us by the learned Government Pleader. On verification, we are convinced that the copies of several relied-upon documents, which find a place in the case file, are not readable and illegible. 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 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.

10. In the case at hand, it is established that some of the copies of the relied-upon documents supplied to 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 the PITNDPS 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.

11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P1 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Shins Augustine 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, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, forthwith.