The court reaffirmed that while delays in detention orders must be scrutinized, reasonable delays do not automatically invalidate such orders under the PITNDPS Act.

The petitioner herein is the wife of one Vinu @ Antony ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 02.09.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS Act for brevity). The said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 19.11.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that, on 03.06.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, eight cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the order of detention. Out of the said cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.222/2025 of Medical College Police Station, Thrissur City alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 22 (b)

of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, 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 was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. The learned counsel urged that there occurred an unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the detention order, and the said delay will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the said sole ground. 5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Ext.P1 order was passed upon proper application of mind and after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the Government Pleader, there is no inordinate delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order as claimed in this writ petition. The learned Government Pleader urged that the impugned order requires no interference as the same was passed on proper application of mind and after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction.

6. The records reveal that Ext.P1 order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in narcotic drug peddling activities. As already stated, eight cases in which the detenu got involved formed the basis for passing the detention order. The sole contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the detention order, and the said delay will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention.

7. 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 impact on the personal as well as the fundamental rights of an individual. Therefore, such an order could not be passed in a casual manner; instead, it can only be passed on credible materials and upon arriving at the requisite objective, as well as 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 dete