 Act, 2007 KAAPA.webp)
The Kerala High Court has quashed a preventive detention order issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAA(P)A), holding that the authorities failed to justify the delay in passing the detention order and also denied the detenu a fair opportunity to challenge the action by not supplying a crucial piece of evidence relied upon against him.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the judgment on July 22, 2026, allowing a writ petition filed by the detenu's mother, Ambika Mohanan, challenging the detention of her son, Manu Mohan.
Background of the Case
The detention order dated January 8, 2026, was issued under Section 3(1) of KAA(P)A after the authorities relied on several criminal cases allegedly involving the detenu, including offences relating to theft, house-breaking and trespass. The Government later confirmed the detention for a period of one year.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the incidents relied upon were private disputes that did not disturb public order, that there had been an unexplained delay in initiating preventive detention proceedings, and that CCTV footage relied upon by the detaining authority had never been supplied to the detenu, affecting his constitutional right to make an effective representation.
Court's Observations
The High Court first examined whether the alleged activities affected "public order" or merely amounted to "law and order" issues. Referring to earlier Supreme Court decisions, the Bench observed that repeated property-related offences could create insecurity among members of the public and therefore need not always remain confined to private disputes.
The Bench noted:
“Such repeated involvement in property offences... cannot be viewed as mere individual disputes.”
According to the Court, repeated offences involving theft and house-breaking may create fear regarding the safety of persons and property and are capable of affecting public order under the KAA(P)A framework. It therefore rejected the petitioner's argument that the offences were purely private in nature.
Delay in Passing the Detention Order
However, the Court found merit in the challenge relating to delay.
The Bench noted that although the proposal for preventive detention had been forwarded within about 15 days of the detenu's arrest, there was an unexplained period of around 47 days before the detention order was finally issued. The authorities failed to place any material before the Court explaining this delay.
Observing that preventive detention requires a live and proximate connection between the alleged activities and the detention order, the Court held:
“Failure to explain such delay casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority.”
The unexplained delay, the Court said, snapped the necessary link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the need for preventive detention.
CCTV Footage Not Supplied
The Bench also found a separate constitutional infirmity in the detention proceedings.
It noted that the detaining authority had expressly relied upon CCTV footage to conclude that the detenu had reached the scene on a scooter and committed the alleged theft. Since the footage formed a vital part of the material relied upon for detention, it had to be supplied to the detenu.
The Court observed:
“The CCTV footage... constitutes a vital relied-upon document.”
As the footage was neither supplied nor made available for inspection, the detenu was deprived of an effective opportunity to challenge the detention, violating the safeguard under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The Bench held that the non-supply of such a crucial document rendered the detention order legally unsustainable.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the Kerala High Court held that while the offences relied upon could not be treated as purely private disputes, the detention order could not survive judicial scrutiny because of the unexplained delay in passing it and the failure to furnish the CCTV footage relied upon by the authorities.
The Court consequently set aside the detention order and directed the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, to release Manu Mohan immediately, provided his custody was not required in any other case.
Case Details
Case Title: Ambika Mohanan v. State of Kerala & Others
Case Number: WP(Crl.) No. 651 of 2026
Judge: Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M.
Decision Date: July 22, 2026
