The Kerala High Court has set aside a preventive detention order against a man under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA), after finding that the authorities failed to provide him with the detention order and supporting documents in Kannada, the language he understood. The Court held that this failure deprived him of his constitutional right to make an effective representation against his detention.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. delivered the judgment on October 9, 2026, in a criminal writ petition filed by the detainee’s wife, challenging the detention orders issued by the Kasaragod District Magistrate and subsequently confirmed by the State Government.
Background
The authorities had classified the detainee as a “known rowdy” after considering six criminal cases involving him. The District Magistrate issued the preventive detention order on May 5, 2026, under Section 3(1) of KAAPA. The order was executed on May 8, 2026, and the State Government subsequently confirmed it and directed detention for six months from the date of detention.
The petitioner argued that her husband, who hailed from Karnataka, knew only Kannada. Although the authorities were aware of his language, he was not supplied with Kannada translations of the detention order or the documents relied upon to justify it. She contended that this prevented him from understanding the grounds of detention and exercising his right to challenge the order effectively.
The State maintained that the detention order had been issued after due consideration and that the relevant documents had been supplied in readable form. It also claimed that the contents had been explained to the detainee in a language he understood.
The Bench examined the detention records and found no endorsement showing that the detainee had received translated documents or that their contents had been explained to him in Kannada. It relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, to underline the importance of communicating detention grounds in a language the detainee understands.
The Court observed:
“The whole purpose of communicating the 'ground' to the detenu is to enable him to make a purposeful and effective representation. If the 'grounds' are only verbally explained to the detenu and, nothing in writing is left with him, in a language which he understands, then that purpose is not served, and the constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) is infringed.”
The Bench held that the obligation extends to the detention order and the material documents relied upon by the authorities. It found that the failure to supply Kannada translations violated the detainee’s fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
“Since the detenue was not supplied with the translated copy of Ext.P2 detention order and other material documents relied therein in the language known to him, the fundamental right guaranteed to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was denied to him.”
The Court, however, rejected the separate argument that the detention order merely reproduced the police report without independent consideration. It also found no illegibility in the documents supplied.
Allowing the writ petition, the Division Bench set aside the detention order dated May 5, 2026, and the Government’s order dated July 2, 2026, which continued the detention for six months.
The Court directed the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, to release the detainee forthwith, provided his detention was not required in connection with any other case.
