LEKHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vinod @ Punchiri Vinod, the husband of the petitioner, was detained as per Ext.P1 order of detention (C.C.9/S.13/Camp/16 dated 25.2.2016) passed by the District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA'). The order of detention was executed by arresting the petitioner on 3.3.2016. Ext.P1 order of detention is the second order of detention so far as the detenu is concerned. The first detention order dated 2.10.2014 and which was executed on 12.10.2014 was enforced for the full term and the detenu completed that period in jail. The second order of detention (Ext.P1) was issued since, after the period of the first detention order, the petitioner got himself involved in Crime No.1631 of 2015 of Karamana Police Station, wherein the date of occurrence was 27.11.2015. The detenu is classified as a "known rowdy" by the District Magistrate while passing the order of detention. The order of detention as well as the continued detention of the detenu are under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions in the Writ Petition, he pressed only one point for the time being, namely, many of the documents supplied to the detenu are not legible and readable. He referred to Exts.P5, P6, P7, P9, P10, P11, P12, P13, P14 and P17 documents and submitted that many pages therein are illegible. We have gone through the aforesaid illegible documents produced along with the Writ Petition as well as the originals of those documents in the file produced before us by the learned Government Pleader. We are not satisfied with the contention of the petitioner that Exts.P5, P6 and P11 are illegible. However, the contention raised by the petitioner that many pages in Exts.P7, P9, P10, P12, P13, P14 and P17 are not readable is true. For example, the following pages in the Writ Petition are either incomplete or illegible.

(3.) Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India provides that when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him an earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. The expression "communicate to such person" has been explained in various decisions of the Supreme Court taking the view that communication should be in a language known to the detenu and that the communication is for the purpose of enabling the detenu to make an effective and meaningful representation. The Supreme Court also held in Smt.Icchu Devi Choraria v. UOI and others (AIR 1980 SC 1983) that the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention also should be supplied to the detenu. Therefore, the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention and which are supplied to the detenu must be readable and could be understood by the detenu to enable him to make a representation to the authority concerned. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in Shalini Soni v. UOI and others (AIR 1981 SC 431) and Khudiram Das v. The State of West Bengal and others ((1975) 2 SCC 81). Since the mandatory requirements have not been complied with while supplying the relied upon documents to the detenu, the continued detention of the detenu is illegal.