Delayed execution of a detention order under the KAA(P) Act invalidates its legality.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 30.10.2025 passed against one Siyad, S/o Abdul Rahman (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act , 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu.

2. The records reveal that on 29.09.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, the 3rd respondent, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act, before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the impugned detention order.

3. Out of the four cases considered for passing Ext.P1 detention order, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity against the detenu is Crime No.487/2025 of Pandikkad Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 118(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ).

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order of detention was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. According to the counsel, the detention order was passed without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. The learned counsel further submitted that, though the impugned order was passed on 30.10.2025, the same was executed only on 06.11.2025. According to the counsel, the said delay in executing the order is unjustifiable and will breach the statutory provision regarding the execution of such an order particularly since the detenu was available in jail at the time when the impugned order was passed. On these premises, it was urged that Ext.P1 order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, Sri. K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that the detention order was passed after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite subjective as well as objective satisfaction and hence no interference is warranted in the impugned order.

7. While considering the rival contentions, the first and foremost aspect that needs to be taken note of is that, in the case at hand, the proceedings for taking action under the KAA(P) Act were initiated while the detenu was under judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity. The date of occurrence of the incident, which led to the registration of the case with respect to the last prejudicial activity, was on 12.09.2025. It was on 14.09.2025, the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, and since then, he has been under judicial custody.

8. However, from a perusal of the records, it is evident that although the impugned order was passed on 30.10.2025, the same was executed only on 06.11.2025. In essence, the order was executed on the seventh day of its passing. Undisputedly at the time of passing the impugned order, the detenu was readily available in the jail in connection with the case registered against him with respect to the last prejudicial activity. Therefore, it was very well possible for the authority concerned to execute the order swiftly. The delayed execution of the impugned order is fatal, particularly when no convincing explanation whatsoever has been assigned for the said delay. When there is no special reason that justifies the delayed execution, the same is a ground to interfere with the impugned order, as the same breaches