Release from Kannur Central Prison, unless he is wanted in another case: that is the consequence of a KAAPA detention resting on orders and documents that reached a Kannada-speaking man only in Malayalam, the Kerala High Court has held.
Ernakulam: Setting aside the preventive detention of a Karnataka native under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, the Kerala High Court has held that his right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution was infringed, since the detention order and the documents relied on were not supplied to him in Kannada, the only language he knows, and has directed that he be released unless he is required in connection with any other case [Ayishath Ruksana v. State of Kerala and Others].
The writ petition was filed by the detenue’s wife, Ayishath Ruksana, and a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. allowed it in a judgment delivered on 9 October 2026. The detention order dated 5 May 2026 and the Government order of 2 July 2026, which continued the detention for six months, were both set aside.
Grounds that must be understood to be answered
The file, the Bench found, showed nothing to suggest that the contents of the order were given to the detenue in Kannada, or that translated copies were supplied. An oral explanation, it held, does not meet the requirement. Relying on Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack (1969), Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981) and Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland (2025), the Court reiterated that grounds must be conveyed in writing in a language the detenue understands. It quoted the principle from Lallubhai that the grounds:
“should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands.”
The right under Article 22(5) to make an effective representation had therefore been denied, the Court held. Two other points did not alter the outcome: it did not accept that the detention order was a verbatim copy of the sponsoring report, finding independent consideration in the order, and it found the documents legible.
The directions
“the impugned Exts.P2 and P4 orders are liable to be set aside.”
The Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, was directed to release the detenue forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case, and the Registry was told to e-mail the order to the Superintendent at once.
The detenue and the detention
The detenue, Ibrahim Kalandhar alias K. Ibrahim, was classified as a “known rowdy” on the basis of six criminal cases, the latest being Crime No. 48/2026 of Kumbla Police Station under Sections 305, 331(4) and 334(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, for an incident of 18 January 2026 that led to his arrest on 23 January. Those cases are allegations that remain untested; the High Court has expressed no view on them, and the presumption of innocence applies.
A sponsoring report dated 13 March 2026 was submitted while he was in judicial custody. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kasaragod, passed the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Act on 5 May 2026, and it was executed on 8 May. The Government confirmed it on 20 May 2026 under Section 3(3), and on 2 July 2026 continued the detention for six months under Section 10(4). The detenue is lodged in Central Prison, Kannur.
What each side argued
The petitioner contended that the detenue is from Karnataka and knows only Kannada, yet no translated copies of the detention order or the supporting documents were given to him, which prevented an effective representation. She relied on Hadibandhu Das and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel. She also argued that the detention order was a verbatim copy of the sponsoring report, showing non-application of mind (relying on Rosily Antony), and that some of the documents supplied were illegible.
The State answered that the order rested on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and was not a copy of the report, that all documents were readable and supplied, and that the detenue had been orally apprised of their contents in a language he knows.
Why the judgment matters
Preventive detention operates without a trial, so the Constitution treats the detenue’s right to know the grounds and to answer them as the central safeguard. The judgment applies that settled position to a practical gap: where the detenue does not read the language of the administration, the grounds and the relied-on documents have to be delivered in a language he understands, and an oral explanation recorded nowhere cannot stand in for translated copies.
For detaining authorities handling migrant or out-of-State detenues, the ruling is a reminder that the file must show the translated supply. A detention that is otherwise made on subjective satisfaction can still fall at the stage of communication.
Case Title: Ayishath Ruksana v. State of Kerala and Others
Case No.: WP(Crl.) No. 1247 of 2026 (2026:KER:77781)
Bench: Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S., Kerala High Court
Date of Judgment: October 9, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Anil K. Muhamed with Advocates Krishnakumar G., Ajin Salam and Amith Leo James for the petitioner; Additional State Public Prosecutor M. Muhammed Shafi and Government Pleader Chethan Krishna R. for the respondents