ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS
Jasid A. S. S/o Sulaiman – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
1. The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Criminal) seeking for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari, in regard to the challenge against the order preventing and detaining the detenu in this case under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, are as follows:
(ii) Writ of certiorari calling for the entire records pertaining to Exhibit P-1 detention order and quash Exhibit P1 detention order as it ultravires constitution and is against law.
(iii) Any other writ or order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit according to the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard Sri. Liffy P. Francis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. In the instant case, brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows:
Even if Court concedes that necessary action for contemplating for preventive detention have been taken by sponsoring agency.
Point of Law : Court are constrained to overrule the contention of the counsel for petitioner that, live link between the last prejudicial activity and purpose of detention has been snapped in this c....
detention order will not in any manner even remotely show that the detaining authority, after consideration of the said crucial aspect has found that there are compelling reasons justifying the preve....
The court established that excessive delays in preventive detention orders and in the consideration of representations violate constitutional rights, necessitating strict compliance with procedural s....
If there is inordinate and unexplained delay in passing detention order, then same is liable for interdiction in judicial proceedings.
Time consumed by the detaining authority for seeking additional particulars in the case on hand cannot be said to be reasonable, justifying the delay.
Undue delay in issuing a detention order vitiates its validity, necessitating a timely nexus between alleged acts and preventive detention.
Undue delay in passing a detention order under the KAA(P) Act can undermine its validity by snapping the link between the last prejudicial act and the purpose of detention.
Detention orders must be issued promptly to maintain the link between prejudicial activities and detention purpose; undue delay invalidates such orders.
Delay in executing a detention order violates statutory mandates when not justified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.