RISHIL FARHA C. P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Munavar Fairos, the husband of the petitioner, was detained by Ext.P1 order dtd. 3/7/2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under Sec. 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAAP' Act for brevity). The detention order was executed on 9/7/2024 and he has been undergoing detention from 1/6/2024.

(2.) This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order and for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the body of the detenu and to set him at liberty.

(3.) Though various contentions have been raised in the Writ Petition to assail the order of detention, when the matter is taken up today, Sri. M.H Hanis, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that further detention of the detenu, pursuant to Ext.P1 detention order, cannot be sustained under the law for the reason that the further detention of the detenu has been approved by the Advisory Board which cannot be said to have been duly constituted in accordance with the law. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the Advisory Board constituted under Sec. 8 shall consist of a Chairman, who is or had been a Judge, and two other members, who are qualified under the Constitution of India to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court. In the case on hand, a reference was made by the Government to the Advisory Board and as the office of the Chairman was lying vacant, the opinion was rendered by two members without the junction of the Chairman. The said opinion was accepted by the Government and the detention order was confirmed. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the confirmation order passed by the Government relying on the opinion submitted by an Advisory Board, which has not been constituted in accordance with the law, is a clear violation of the constitutional mandate and the statutory provisions. According to the learned counsel, the rights guaranteed to the detenu under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India have been infringed and on that sole ground, the detention order is liable to be interfered with.