The Kerala High Court has ruled that denying a person in preventive detention copies of the detention order and supporting documents in a language he understands violates the fundamental right to make an effective representation against the detention. The court set aside the detention of Ibrahim Kalandhar under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and ordered his release if he was not required in any other case.
A bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and S Muralee Krishna issued the ruling while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Kalandhar’s wife, Ayishath Ruksana. Kalandhar, a native of Dakshina Kannada who resides in Kasaragod, had been in custody since January 23, according to the petition.
Authorities had initiated proceedings against him after considering six criminal cases in which he was allegedly involved. While he was in judicial custody, the Kasaragod district police chief submitted a sponsoring report recommending preventive detention on March 13. A detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act was subsequently issued on May 5, and Kalandhar was classified as a “known rowdy”.
The petitioner told the court that Kalandhar knew only Kannada because he hailed from Karnataka. The detention order and related documents, however, were not supplied to him in Kannada. The petition argued that this prevented him from understanding the grounds of detention and from exercising his right to submit a representation to the competent authorities.
The High Court accepted that contention and relied on earlier Supreme Court rulings concerning preventive detention. The bench held that an oral explanation of the documents was not sufficient where the detenu did not understand the language or script in which the written material had been supplied. According to the court, the person must receive a translation in a language and script that he understands so that he can effectively challenge the detention.
The ruling is based on Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which requires that a person detained under a preventive detention law be informed of the grounds of detention and be given the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order. The court found that withholding translated copies had prejudiced Kalandhar’s ability to exercise this constitutional safeguard.
The case also places responsibility on detention authorities to ensure that procedural communication is meaningful rather than merely formal. Supplying an order without ensuring that the detenu can understand its contents does not satisfy the constitutional requirement identified by the court. The bench therefore set aside the detention order and directed the superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, to release Kalandhar immediately, subject to any other case requiring his custody.
