Judgment :- Basant, J. Does the omission to furnish all necessary documents which were already furnished along with the original order of detention again when the modified order of detention was served on the detenu affect the validity of his detention under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Kaapa') ? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this petition. 2. Petitioner is the brother of Edison Mathew, the detenu. The detenu was involved in several crimes registered against him. On the basis of the crimes registered against him, he without any dispute falls within the sweep of the definition of a 'known rowdy' in Section 2 (p) of the KAAPA. He was arrested and was in custody in connection with several cases from 16.07.2008. He secured bail in those cases one after other and could walk out of the prison on 19.01.2009. At that juncture the detenu was arrested as per an order of detention dt.04.01.2008 [Ext.R1 (a)] passed by the 2nd respondent herein. He was detained in prison. All necessary formalities in respect of that detention on 19.01.2009 under order dt.04.01.2008 were satisfied. But it appears that the 2nd respondent realized that the said order of detention cannot be justified in the light of the decision in Anitha Bruse v. State of Kerala [2008(2) KLT 857] and subsequent circulars issued by the Government. Thereupon the 2nd respondent modified the order of detention in exercise of the powers under Section 13 of the KAAPA by passing Ext.P1 order dt.22.01.2009. That order along with grounds was served on the detenu on 22.01.2009 while he was detained in prison. He continued under detention on the strength of the original order as modified by the subsequent order Ext.P1 dt.22.01.2009. His detention was approved by the Government later under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA. Reference was made to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board recommended his continued detention and the Government had confirmed the order of detention under Section 10 of the KAAPA. The detenu continues to be under detention now. 3. The petitioner, who is the detenu's brother, has now come to this Court with a prayer that a Writ of habeas Corpus may be issued to cause the production of the detenu, to set aside the modified order of detention Ext.P1 and to set the detenu at liberty. 4. The detenu continues to be under detention now. 3. The petitioner, who is the detenu's brother, has now come to this Court with a prayer that a Writ of habeas Corpus may be issued to cause the production of the detenu, to set aside the modified order of detention Ext.P1 and to set the detenu at liberty. 4. What is the reason? Though various grounds are seen urged, the learned senior counsel Sri. C.C. Thomas before us assails the impugned order only on the following 2 short grounds. i) The detention from 19.01.2009 to 22.01.2009 on the strength of Ext.R1(a) order dated 04.01.2008 is bad for the reason that it offends Article 22(4) of the Constitution as held in Anitha Bruse v. State of Kerala (supra). ii) At any rate, continued detention, under the modified order Ext.P1 dt.22.01.2009, is bad for the reason that necessary documents have not been furnished to the detenu along with order of detention dt.22.01.2009 as insisted by Section 7(2) of the KAAPA. Ground No.(i) 5. It is not necessary to delve deeper into the first ground as it is virtually conceded that detention after 22.01.2009 cannot be justified on the basis of Ext.R1(a) order dt.04.01.2008. Ext.R1(A) clearly shows that detention was ordered for a period of 6 months from the date of arrest. That stipulation clearly offends the unambiguous mandate of Article 22(4) which question has been considered in detail in the decision in Anitha Bruse v. State of Kerala. No attempt is made by the learned Addl.D.G.P to justify detention after 22.01.2009 on the basis of Ext.R1(a) order dt.04.01.2008. The challenge on this ground therefore succeeds. Ground No.(ii) 6. But the crucial question to be considered is whether the continued detention on the basis of the modified Ext.P1 order dt.22.01.2009 suffers from the vice of non compliance with the mandate of Section 7(2) that not only the order of detention and the grounds, but also "copies of all relevant documents as far as practicable" must be furnished to the detenu. 7. There is a dispute raised as to whether the other documents (other than the order of detention and grounds of detention which accompanied the order of detention) had been furnished to the detenu along with Ext.P1 order dt.22.01.09. 7. There is a dispute raised as to whether the other documents (other than the order of detention and grounds of detention which accompanied the order of detention) had been furnished to the detenu along with Ext.P1 order dt.22.01.09. Notwithstanding the factual controversies raised on that aspect, it appears to us very easy to come to a conclusion that along with Ext.P1 order of detention dt.22.01.09 only that order and the grounds appended to that order running to 7 pages have alone were furnished to the detenu. The endorsement of the detenu taken on Ext.R1(c) clearly shows that the detention order and grounds running to 7 pages alone were furnished when the modified order dt.22.01.09 was served on the detenu in jail. That factual controversy comes to rest with that finding. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in these circumstances the proved omission to furnish the copies of relevant documents referred to in Section 7(2) of the KAAPA must entail invalidation of the detention on the strength of Ext.P1. That hence is the only question that falls for consideration. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner immediately brings to our notice that the order dt.22.01.09 must be reckoned as a modification of the order dt.04.01.2008. The learned counsel submits that even if it be reckoned as a procedural error in Ext.R1(a) order to stipulate that the detention was for a period of 6 months, the modified order passed after correcting that error can also be reckoned as a valid order only if all the requirements of Section 7(2) of the KAAPA are followed and conformed in respect of subsequent modified order dt.22.01.2009. The learned counsel argues that inasmuch as Section 7(2) of the KAAPA the stipulation obliging the detaining authority to furnish all relevant documents under Section 7(2) of the KAAPA has not been complied with in respect of the earlier order dt.04.01.2008, this Court must invalidate the detention. 10. The learned Addl.D.G.P on the contrary submits that there is no justification in this prayer at all. Furnishing of copies is not an empty formality. It has a purpose to serve. Where it is clear as day light that the alleged omission, even if it be reckoned as an omission, has not resulted in any prejudice and cannot justify even a fanciful plea of prejudice, such non compliance cannot be held to be fatal. Furnishing of copies is not an empty formality. It has a purpose to serve. Where it is clear as day light that the alleged omission, even if it be reckoned as an omission, has not resulted in any prejudice and cannot justify even a fanciful plea of prejudice, such non compliance cannot be held to be fatal. The modified order of detention and the detention on the strength of such order cannot be assailed on that ground, contends the learned Addl.D.G.P. 11. The law has always zealously ensured that there is literal compliance with even the procedural stipulations of the law relating to preventive detention. But even then it would be idle to assume that such insistence is without any purpose or rationale. It is true that the law insists that a person preventively detained must be furnished all information about the grounds of detention and the materials on which the order of detention is founded. This is not a ritualistic formality. It has often been held that this is for the purpose of enabling the detenu to make a proper and effective representation which right to representation is guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The said mandate of the Constitution is reiterated in Section 7(2) of the KAAPA. Copies of all documents have to be furnished. Not only the order of detention or the grounds thereof, but also all relevant documents, on the basis of which the twin satisfactions are entertained by the detaining authority, must be furnished to the detenu under Section 7 (2) of the KAAPA. The twin satisfactions, we may mention, is firstly that the detenu is either a known goonda or a non rowdy. The second is the satisfaction that his detention is necessary to prevent him from culpable conduct. The former is an objective satisfaction, Whereas the latter is a subjective satisfaction. The order of detention, grounds of detention as well as all relevant documents on which the requisite satisfactions are entertained have got to be furnished to the detenu. This insistence is non negotiable. But the insistence, we repeat, is not a mere ritualistic insistence. The purpose of the insistence is very clear. The detenu, who is detained not for anything which he had done, but on the basis of anticipated future objectionable acts, must know why he is detained. This insistence is non negotiable. But the insistence, we repeat, is not a mere ritualistic insistence. The purpose of the insistence is very clear. The detenu, who is detained not for anything which he had done, but on the basis of anticipated future objectionable acts, must know why he is detained. He must also have the opportunity to make an effective and expeditious representation. He has a right to get that representation considered properly and expeditiously by the Government and the Advisory Board. This is the purpose or the rationale behind the insistence that all necessary documents must be furnished to the detenu. Where a Court is convinced that the alleged omission/infraction has in no way affected, the detenu's right to know why he is detained and his right to make a representation before the authorities concerned, it would be irrational, myopic and unnecessary to invalidate the detention on that ground. Societal interests have got to be balanced with the cherished right of individual liberty and freedom. 12. So viewed, we find absolutely no reason to invalidate Ext.P1 order of detention. A reading of Ext.R1 (a), the original order of detention and Ext.P1, the modified order of detention, clearly and unambiguously shows that they were identical in all respects but for the fact that the period of detention was specified to be 6 months in the order dt.04.01.2008 (Ext.R1(a)) Except that, there is absolutely no difference. Ext.P1 was admittedly a modification of Ext.R1(a) order under Section 13 and it is so stated unambiguously in Ext.P1. All necessary documents without any dispute had been furnished along with Ext.R1(a). 13. If that be so, we find absolutely no merit in the grievance that the omission to supply the copy of the order of detention dt.04.01.2008 along with the grounds of detention and the relevant documents afresh and again to the detenu along with Ext.P1 order can in any way affect the validity of detention. In no way has the alleged inadequacy/omission affected the right of the detenu to know the grounds or to make representation against his detention. 14. The argument is strenuously advanced that there must be literal compliance of the mandate under Section 7(2) of the KAAPA and it is no reason or justification in a case of preventive detention to urge that there has been substantial compliance. 14. The argument is strenuously advanced that there must be literal compliance of the mandate under Section 7(2) of the KAAPA and it is no reason or justification in a case of preventive detention to urge that there has been substantial compliance. In the instant case, we take the view that there has been literal compliance of Section 7(2) of the KAAPA notwithstanding the fact that the order dt.04.01.2008 [Ext.R1(a)] the grounds and the relevant documents which were not furnished 3 days prior to 22.01.2009, the date of Ext.P1 were not furnished again along with Ext.P1. What is vital is that Ext.P1 order is admittedly only a modification of Ext.R1(a). It is so stated specifically in Ext.P1. All relevant documents have been furnished along with Ext.R1(a). Reliance is not placed on any further material. There is no contention even of any impairment of the right to make a representation against detention. In that view of the matter, we are not persuaded to interfere with Ext.P1 order of detention on the basis of that alleged inadequacy. 15. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed.