Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. The petitioner is the wife of Yasin Sajeer @ Yasin Sajar ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 detention order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 23.11.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year from the date of execution of the order.

2. The records reveal that, on 22.08.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known goonda' as defined under Section 2(o)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order.

3. Earlier, a detention order was passed against the detenu, and after completing the period of detention provided in the said detention order, the detenu again got involved in the last prejudicial activity, which led to the passing of the present detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.817/2025 of Alathur Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

4. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order was passed without proper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel, out of the copy of the relied-upon documents served on the detenu, some of the documents were not legible. The learned counsel urged that the lapse on the part of the detaining authority in not serving the legible copies of the relied upon documents prejudiced him as he could not file an effective representation against the detention order before the Advisory Board. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the order of detention was passed after complying with all the necessary legal formalities and after proper application of mind. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the copies of all the relevant records were furnished to the detenu, and the detenu was duly informed of his right to file a representation against the detention order before the Government as well as the Advisory Board and hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.

7. The records reveal that the detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities. As already stated, four cases in which the detenu got involved 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.817/2025 of Alathur Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 14.07.2025, and he was arrested on the same day. Since then, he has been under judicial custody. It was on 22.08.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was forwarded by the sponsoring authority. Subsequently, on 16.09.2025, the detention order was passed. The sequence of the events narrated above reveals that there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order.

8. As already mentioned, the main contention of the petitioner is that the copies of the relied-upon documents served on the detenu were illegible. The copies of the relied upon documents served on the detenu were also produced along with this writ petition to substantiate the said contention. In order to verify the veracity of the said contention, we have examined the case file made available to us by the learned Public Prosecutor. On verification, we are convinced that the copies of some of the relied-upon documents, which find a place in the case file itself, are not legible.

9. 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 guaranteed 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 copies of some of the relied-upon documents supplied on 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 KAA(P) 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, Viyyur, Thirssur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Yasin Sajeer @ Yasin Sajar, 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, Viyyur, Thirssur, forthwith.