The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 6) has set aside the prevention detention of BJP Councillor from Thiruvananthapuram Sugathan R., who is presently detained in Viyyur Jail (Thrissur) as per the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA). [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 554]

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. today delivered the verdict in a writ petition preferred by Sugathan's wife to quash the order of preventive detention passed on June 8 as well as the order of approval issued by the State government.

The Court found that the preventive detention order passed by District Collector/District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram was issued in a casual manner without proper application of mind or subjective satisfaction.

"we have no hesitation to hold that the order of preventive detention issued against the detenue is liable to be set aside on the ground of non- consideration of the representations submitted by the detenue...we notice that several pages of those documents supplied to the detenue are illegible. So also, some of the pages of the documents are missing...Those documents cannot be said as immaterial. The respondents are also having no case that those documents were not relied on...for issuing the detention order. Therefore, we find force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the detenue was not supplied with or supplied with illegible copies of some of the material documents...and we find no merit in the contention of the learned Director General of Prosecution that there is substantial compliance as far as supply of documents to the detenue is concerned," the Court remarked.

The detention order was extended on June 10 and aggrieved, Sugathan's wife approached the High Court. She had also sought for a writ of habeas corpus to produce him, contending that his detention in Viyyur jail was illegal.

The District Collector had considered 7 criminal cases in which Sugathan was involved in from 2019 to 2026 for classification as 'known rowdy' and to order preventive detention. The last prejudicial activity was on March 22 for which a crime was registered under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 110 read with Section 35 BNS.

Petitioner's arguments

Senior Advocate Saurav Mishra appearing for the petitioner argued that Sugathan filed representations before the Additional Chief Secretary (Home Department) and the Chief Secretary to the Government but they waited for the opinion of the Advisory Board before considering them. He contended that this violated the fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, guaranteeing independent consideration of his representations.

It was pointed out that in 6 of these cases, investigation was already over and final report filed. Sugathan was granted bail in 5 cases, not arrested in one case and was granted anticipatory bail in another. Another point raised was that several pages in the documents supplied to Sugathan along with the order were illegible or missing and the same caused prejudice.

State's contentions

The Director General of Prosecution argued that Sugathan has been on the rowdy list from 2014 itself and there were 22 criminal cases registered against him. It was pointed out that two externment orders were issued against Sugathan in 2023 and 2025.

The DGP also submitted that Sugathan refused to receive the arrest intimation and also attacked the police official who went to arrest him. It was contended that if certain pages were missing/illegible, that by itself would not render the detention as illegal.

He further argued that the fact that Sugathan was a member of Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation has nothing to do with the preventive detention order.

Court's observations

Referring to several decisions, the Court came to the conclusion that the government should independently consider the detenue's representation for setting aside preventive detention order without looking at the Advisory Board's decision. It added that any delay in doing so would violate fundamental rights:

"the principle that can be drawn is that the detenue has the right to submit separate representations to the Advisory Board as well as to the Government as permitted under Section 7(2) of the KAA (P) Act and the Government is duty-bound to consider the representations submitted by the detenue independently. The unexplained delay in considering the representation violates the constitutional safeguard guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, making further detention of the detenue bad in the eyes of law. The Government is acting in a dual capacity as far as an order of preventive detention is concerned. When a representation is received from the detenue, its independent consideration by the Government is mandated under law. There is no necessity for the Government to wait for the opinion of the Advisory Board to consider the representation submitted by the detenue."

The Court also added:

"Being an order which curtails the fundamental rights of a person even without trial, the authorities should exhaust all other statutory steps available to prevent the detenue from involving in similar activities of breach of public order, before initiation of steps for preventive detention."

It thus ordered Sugathan's release and set aside all the orders relating to his preventive detention:

"The 4th respondent, Superintendent of Central Prison and Correction Home, Viyyur, is directed to release the detenue Mr. Sugathan R., S/o Raveendran Nair P., forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. The Registry shall communicate this order to the 4th respondent by e-mail at once."

Sugathan is the councillor elected from Ward No. 20 (Vazhottukonam) of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation in the 2025 local body elections. Subsequently, he was detained under preventive detention orders as per the KAAPA.

In July, the High Court had directed the State to enable Sugathan to take oath of office from inside prison after his earlier oath was declared invalid by the Court.

Counsel for the petitioner: Saurav Mishra (Sr.), Suvin R. Menon, Parshathy S.R., Govind P., Achuth Krishnan R., Cristy Theresa Suresh, Rishikesh Haridas

Counsel for the respondents: T. Asaf Ali - Director General of Prosecution, T.A. Laliza - Sr. Government Pleader, Rasheed C. Nooranad - Spl. Government Pleader