Detention orders must be timely to maintain the link between prejudicial activities and their prevention, or they risk invalidation.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against a detention order dated 28.5.2025, passed against one Sharon K.X S/o. K.J Xavier (herein after referred to as ‘detenu), under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘PITNDPS Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu.

2. The records reveal that, on 15.2.2025, a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode city, the 4th respondent, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 3rd respondent. Altogether, two cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the impugned order of detention. Out of the two cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.11/2025 of Nadakkavu Police Station, alleging commission of offenses punishable under Sections

22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri.Sharan Shahier, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority 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 is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that there is no unreasonable delay either in submitting the proposal or in passing the Ext.P1 detention order after the commission of 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. 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.

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 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 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.

8. In T.A.Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala , [1990 SCC Cri 76] , the Apex Court held that the question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live link between t