Unreasonable delays in issuing detention orders undermine their validity and breach individual rights under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner is the wife of one Gasal ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 11.09.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 24.11.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, on 11.08.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, five cases in which the detenu was involved have been considered by the detaining authority for passing the impugned order of detention. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.686/2025 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, registered, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 115(2), 351(1), 110 r/w 3(5) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).

3. We 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 submitted that the order impugned by way of this writ petition has been passed on improper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel, there is an unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the detention order after the date of the last prejudicial activity and the said long delay in submitting the proposal and in passing the detention order will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the detention. On these premises, the learned counsel urged to set aside the impugned order.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that there is no unreasonable delay in passing Ext.P1 detention order. He urged that some minimal delay is inevitable while mooting the proposal as the sponsoring authority needs a reasonable time to collect the details of the cases in which the detenu was involved, and for verification of records. According to the counsel, the minimum delay in submitting the proposal is quite natural, and the same is only negligible.

6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the records. As evident from the records, altogether five cases formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.686/2025 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 115(2), 351(1), 110 r/w 3(5) of BNS.

7. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 05.06.2025. The detenu, who is arrayed as the first accused in the said case was arrested on 07.06.2025. Subsequently, he was released on bail on 24.06.2025. Notably, it was thereafter, on 11.08.2025, the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act was initiated against him. Virtually, there is a delay of more than one and a half months in mooting the proposal after the release of the detenu on bail in the last case registered against him.

8. While