Detention under the KAA(P) Act is valid if based on credible materials and procedural safeguards are followed, even with some delay in proposal submission.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition has been directed against an order of detention dated 06.11.2024 passed against one Sreekuttan C. @ Kannan under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu. The detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 07.01.2025 and the detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of six months.

2. The records available before us disclose that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad, on 01.10.2024, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2p(iii) of the KAA(P) Act, and for passing the order of detention the authority reckoned four cases in which the detenu got involved. The details of the cases considered by the detaining authority for classifying the detenu as a “known rowdy” are given below:-

3. We have heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is vitiated, as the same is passed without proper application of mind and disregarding the procedural safeguards envisaged in the KAA(P) Act. According to the counsel, there is inordinate delay in mooting the proposal by the sponsoring authority and as well as in passing the impugned order by the competent authority after the last prejudicial activity, rendering the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention snapped. The learned counsel further urged that, the jurisdictional authority ought to have taken note of the fact that, already proceedings have been initiated against the detenu under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and the same would have been sufficient to prevent the detenu for involving in criminal activities, particularly when no criminal activity has been reported against the detenu after the initiation of the said proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the investigation in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is still under progress and registration of FIR alone is not sufficient to classify the said case as a qualified one to be reckoned for passing a detention order under the KAA(P) Act. According to him, apart from the FIR registered, there are no other materials substantiating the involvement of the detenu in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity.

5. In response, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader, asserted that there is no unreasonable delay either in submitting the proposal or in passing Ext.P1 detention order after the last prejudicial activity. However, some minimal delay is inevitable while passing a detention order especially when it is the duty of the authority to ensure adherence to the natural justice principles while passing such an order. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the detaining authority passed the impugned order after being fully satisfied that there were sufficient materials to prove the involvement of the detenu in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity and the decision taken by the jurisdictional authority is not solely on the basis of the FIR registered in that case.