Kerala High Court Sets Aside Detention Order of Thiruvananthapuram Councillor R. Sugathan
The Kerala High Court has set aside the preventive detention order against Thiruvananthapuram Corporation councillor R. Sugathan under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and ordered his release from custody.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. passed the judgment on October 6 on a habeas corpus petition filed by Sugathan’s wife, Aswathi G.R.
Sugathan, a BJP councillor representing Ward No. 20 of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation, had been detained under KAAPA pursuant to an order issued by the Thiruvananthapuram District Magistrate on June 8.
He was detained on June 9 and lodged at the Viyyur Central Prison in Thrissur. The State Government subsequently confirmed the detention on July 6 after the KAAPA Advisory Board gave its opinion.
The detention order was based on seven criminal cases registered against Sugathan at Vattiyoorkavu Police Station between 2019 and 2026.
Of these, six cases had been charge-sheeted and were pending trial, while one case registered in 2026 was still under investigation.
Sugathan’s wife challenged the detention, arguing that the safeguards required in preventive detention proceedings had not been properly followed.
One of the principal objections concerned the material supplied to Sugathan along with the detention order. According to the petition, several pages of the documents relied upon by the authorities were either missing or illegible.
The contention was that the defective material prevented Sugathan from effectively understanding the grounds of detention and making a meaningful representation against the order.
The petition also alleged that relevant circumstances connected with the criminal cases had not been properly considered by the detaining authority.
The High Court ultimately allowed the habeas corpus petition and directed that its order be communicated to the Superintendent of the Central Prison and Correctional Home at Viyyur.
The ruling results in Sugathan’s release from preventive detention, subject to any other lawful proceedings or custody that may exist independently of the quashed detention order.
The case also follows an earlier intervention by the Kerala High Court concerning Sugathan’s functioning as an elected councillor.
While he was in preventive detention, Sugathan had approached the High Court after he was unable to take the required oath as a councillor. The Court had permitted arrangements for him to take the oath inside the prison, observing that the mandate given by voters could not simply be defeated because an elected representative was under preventive detention.
The earlier order allowed the necessary municipal officials to enter the prison to complete the swearing-in process.
The latest judgment, however, concerns the legality of the preventive detention itself and not Sugathan’s eligibility to continue as a councillor.
Preventive detention under KAAPA permits authorities to detain persons considered to fall within specified categories of anti-social activity in order to prevent future prejudicial activities. Because such detention can operate without a criminal conviction for the conduct relied upon, constitutional safeguards relating to communication of grounds and the detainee’s opportunity to make an effective representation assume particular importance.
The High Court’s decision therefore underscores the requirement that the material forming the basis of preventive detention must be effectively communicated to the detainee.
Sugathan’s detention had also attracted political attention because the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation is controlled by the BJP-led NDA with a narrow majority.
With the High Court now setting aside the KAAPA detention order, Sugathan has been released from the Viyyur prison, bringing an end to the preventive detention imposed under the June 8 order.
The judgment does not amount to an adjudication on the merits of the criminal cases registered against him. Those proceedings, if otherwise pending, will continue independently in accordance with law.
