Detention orders under the KAA(P) Act must establish a live link between recent activities and the grounds for detention, specifically considering undue delays.

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

This writ petition has been directed against an order of detention dated 18.08.2025, passed against one Iqlas T.V., S/o. Rasheed T.V. 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 18.10.2025 and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months.

2. The records available before us disclose that on

11.07.2025, a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City, 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 Ext.P1 detention order, the jurisdictional authority reckoned four cases in which the detenu got involved. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.345/2025 of Panniyankara Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 117 (2), 126(2), 110 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

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 an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal by the sponsoring authority 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 urged that, if the sponsoring authority had any bona fide 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.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. 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 jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, no interference is warranted.

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

7. While considering the contention of the petitioner, regarding the delay that occurred in submitting the proposal for detention and in passing the detention 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