The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. set aside the preventive detention of a Kannada-speaking man, who was detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAP Act), after noting that he was not supplied with translated copies of the order and material documents.

“Nowhere in that file it was endorsed by the detenue that the contents of the detention order and the documents relied therein, which are in Malayalam, were explained to him in the language known to him or that the translated copies of those documents were supplied to him. Therefore, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the valuable right of the detenue to submit a representation against the detention order was denied to the detenue,” it opined.

The Court relied on Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland (2025) to add that there was violation of his fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and that it is not sufficient that the detenue was apprised of the contents of the order and documents:

“Since the detenue was not supplied with the translated copy of…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 habeas corpus plea before the Court was filed challenging the District Collector's order under the Act as well as the confirmation order passed by the government. The petitioner, who was the detenue's wife, also prayed for the production of her husband.

The petitioner contended that her husband hails from Karnataka and only knows Kannada, which is taken note of in the sponsoring report and the detention order. However, he was not supplied with translated copies of the relevant documents, prejudicing his right to submit a representation before the authorities concerned.

It was also argued that the detention order is vitiated by non-application of mind since it is a verbatim copy of the sponsoring report given by the District Police Chief. Further, it was pointed out that some of the pages supplied to the detenue were illegible copies of the documents relied on.

The prosecutor opposed the plea and denied all the contentions raised by the petitioner. It was pointed out that though translated copies were not given, the detenue was apprised of its contents in the language known to him.

After hearing the parties, the Court referred to various precedents and came to the conclusion that the non-supply of translated documents violated the detenue's fundamental right.

It, however, rejected the contention that the detention order was a verbatim copy of the sponsoring report. The Court also found that the ground raised regarding supply of illegible documents was of no merits.

Thus, it thus allowed the plea and set aside the detention as well as confirmation orders. It directed the Superintendent of the jail to release the detenue if his detention is not required in any other case.

Counsel for the petitioner: Anil K. Muhamed, Krishnakumar G., Ajin Salam, Amith Leo James

Counsel for the respondents: M. Muhammed Shafi - Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Chethan Krishna R. – Government Pleader