Detention orders require a proximate connection to recent offenses; undue delay can compromise validity.

J U D G M E N T Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

22.04.2025 passed against one Suraj Rai, S/o. Sankappa Rai, ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘PITNDPS Act’ for brevity). After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 07.07.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kasaragod, the 2nd respondent, on 31.12.2024, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority. Altogether, three cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the impugned order of detention.

3. As evident from Ext.P1 order, out of the three cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity against the detenu is crime No.156/2024 of Ullal Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The detenu is arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case. The allegation in the said case is that on 28.08.2024, the detenu, along with the 1st accused, was found in possession of 15 gms of MDMA for sale in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

4. We heard Sri. Jasneed Jamal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the jurisdictional authority passed the detention order without proper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel, there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the detention order, and the said delay would certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, 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 date of commission of the last prejudicial activity. According to the learned Government Pleader, some minimal delay is inevitable while passing a detention order, especially when it is the duty of the detaining authority to ensure adherence to the natural justice principles while passing such an order. The learned Government Pleader further urged that the detaining authority passed Ext.P1 order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, no interference is warranted with the impugned order.

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

8. 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 the PITNDPS 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 t