Detention under the PITNDPS Act requires timely action, but minor delays may be justified depending on circumstances surrounding each case.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

An order of detention dated 22.08.2025, passed against one Nisthafir, S/o. Ummer (detenu), under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1988 (‘PITNDPS Act’ for brevity), is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu. The said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 14.11.2025, after obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.

2. As evident from the records, it was on the basis of a proposal dated 16.04.2025, forwarded by the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent, initiated proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority while passing the order of detention. Out of the said cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1468/2025 of Kodungalloor Police Station, alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 27 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

3. We heard Sri. Mansoorali, 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 Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. The learned counsel further urged that 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 livelink between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. According to the counsel, Ext.P1 order is liable to be set aside on the ground of the said delay.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order after proper application of mind and upon being satisfied that an order of detention is the only way out to prevent the detenu from being involved in criminal activities. The learned Government Pleader asserted that there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention has been snapped.

6. While considering the contention of the petitioner regarding the delay in passing the impugned order, it could not be ignored that an order under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS has a significant bearing on the personal as well as the fundamental rights of an individual. Therefore, such an order could not be passed in a mechanical manner; instead, it can only be passed on credible materials and 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 delay in making the proposal and passing the detention order, the same would undermine its validity, particularly when no convincing or plausible explanation is offered for the delay.

7. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the facts in the present case, it can be seen that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was mooted by the Sponsoring authority on 16.04.2025. The said proposal was mooted immediately after the registration of a case as crime No.183/2025 of Mathilakam Police Station, which is the last but one case registered against the detenu. The date of occ