Court Emphasizes Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(5) and Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act for Effective Communication of Grounds in Language Known to Detenue
In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, the Kerala High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S.) set aside the preventive detention order issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ("KAA(P) Act") against Ibrahim Kalandhar @ K. Ibrahim, a detenue hailing from Karnataka who understands only Kannada. The Court held that the failure to provide translated copies of the detention order and the material documents in the language known to the detenue violated his fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 7(2) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
The case arose from a detention order dated May 5, 2026, issued by the District Collector and District Magistrate of Kasaragod, Kerala, classifying the detenue as a `known rowdy' based on six criminal cases against him, including serious offences under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The detenue was already in judicial custody when the sponsoring report recommending detention was submitted. Subsequently, the Government confirmed the detention order, extending the detention for six months.
The petition challenging the detention was filed by the detenue's wife under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for quashing of the detention and confirmation orders, as well as for a writ of Habeas Corpus for his release. The petitioner argued that although the authorities were aware that the detenue only understood Kannada, they did not supply the detention order or the relied-upon documents in Kannada. Instead, the materials were in Malayalam without any endorsement that their contents were explained or translated for the detenue. The petitioner also contended that some documents supplied were illegible, and further challenged the detention order as a verbatim reproduction of the sponsoring report, indicating non-application of mind.
The State defended the detention order, asserting that the detenue was orally apprised of the grounds in Kannada and that all documents supplied were legible. It argued that the detention order was not a mere copy of the sponsoring report but contained independent consideration.
After hearing both parties, the Court observed that Article 22(5) mandates that the grounds of detention must be communicated effectively and fully in writing in a language understood by the detenue to enable him to make an effective representation. Reliance was placed on a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack (AIR 1969 SC 43), Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India ((1981) 2 SCC 427), and Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland (2025 SCC Online SC 502), which clarified that oral explanations alone do not fulfill the constitutional requirement of communication.
The Court found that the authorities failed to supply any translated copies of the detention order or the documents in Kannada, nor was there any endorsement that the contents were explained in a manner enabling the detenue to understand and represent against the detention. Mere oral communication was held insufficient. Consequently, the fundamental right of the detenue to submit a representation against the detention order was denied.
Regarding the contention of verbatim reproduction of the sponsoring report, the Court held that it is natural for the detention order to incorporate material facts from the sponsoring report. This did not amount to non-application of mind.
On the issue of illegibility of some documents, the Court found no merit, noting that the documents were legible and this did not impact the core issue of non-supply of translated documents.
In view of these findings, the Kerala High Court quashed the detention and confirmation orders and directed the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, to release the detenue forthwith unless he was detained for any other lawful reason.
This judgment underscores the inviolability of the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5), ensuring that persons subjected to preventive detention have their rights protected through effective communication in a language they understand, thereby allowing meaningful representation.
Bottom Line:
Preventive detention - Non-supply of translated copies of detention order and relied-on documents in language known to detenue violates Article 22(5) of Constitution and Section 7(2) of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 - Mere oral explanation is insufficient - Detention order liable to be set aside.
Statutory provision(s):
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 Sections 3(1), 3(3), 7(2), 10(4); Constitution of India, 1950 Article 22(5); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 305, 331(4), 334(1)
Ayishath Ruksana v. State of Kerala, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994454
