Detention orders require timely action and valid justifications to maintain the link between prejudicial activities and preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 12.11.2025 passed against one Achu, S/o. Dharmarajan (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 brother of the detenu.

2. The records reveal that on 12.09.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kollam City, the 3rd respondent, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, two cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order.

3. Out of the said cases considered, the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.2022/2025 of East Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The detenu is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case. The allegation in the said case is that on 19.07.2025, the 1st accused, along with other co-accused in this case, were found in possession of 3.869 gm of MDMA for the purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

4. We heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, 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.P2 detention order 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. According to the learned counsel, there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as passing the detention order, and the said delay will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. On these premises, it was urged that Ext.P2 order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that there is no unreasonable delay either in submitting the proposal or in passing Ext.P2 detention order. According to the Government Pleader, 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 verifying the details of the cases in which the detenu is involved, and hence a minimal delay in passing the detention order is quite natural, and the same is justifiable. According to the learned Government Pleader, as the detaining authority passed Ext.P2 order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.

7. While considering the contention of the petitioner regarding the delay that occurred 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 an unexplained long delay in mooting the proposal an