Detention orders under the KAA(P) Act must be timely and justified; undue delay undermines their validity.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition has been directed against an order of detention dated 04.10.2024 passed against one Sakeer Hussain under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government vide order dated 29.11.2024 confirmed the order of detention, and the detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of execution of the order.

2. The records available before us disclose that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, on 08.08.2024 seeking initiation of proceedings 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. For passing the order of detention the authority reckoned seven cases in which the detenu got involved. The case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No. 344/2024 of Pattambi Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 365, 342, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. We have heard Sri.Navaneeth N. Nath, 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 as well as in passing the impugned order after the last prejudicial activity and the said delay will render the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention snapped. The learned counsel urged that, if the sponsoring authority was having any bonafide apprehension regarding the repetition of criminal activities by the detenu, the authority would have acted swiftly in making the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act. Hence the impugned order warrants interference on the ground of delay and is liable to be set aside.

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.P2 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. Moreover, a reasonable time would be necessary for collecting the details of the cases in which the detenu is involved and minimal delay in mooting the proposal and passing the order is quite natural and hence justifiable. According to the learned Government Pleader, the detaining authority passed Ext.P2 order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and no interference is warranted.

6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records.

7. The records show that the detenu was classified as a “known rowdy”, considering his recurrent involvement in seven cases. While considering the contention of the petitioner, regarding the delay that occurred in submitting the proposal for detention and in passing the order, it cannot be ignored that an order under Section 3(1) of KAA(P) Act has a significant impact on the personal as well as fundamental rights of an individual. So such an order could not be passed in a casual manner instead it can only be passed on credible materials after arriving at the requisite objective and subjective satisfaction. Furthermore, there exists no inflexible rule requiring a detention order to be issued within a specific time frame following the last prejudicial act. However, when there is undue