Detention orders must be issued promptly to maintain the link between prejudicial activities and detention purpose; undue delay invalidates such orders.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner is the wife of one Jasim ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P2 order of detention dated 05.12.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity).

2. The records reveal that it was after considering the involvement of the detenu in two criminal cases that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, on 27.10.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.563/2025 of Vengara Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections

22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Smt. Saipooja, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

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 Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no unreasonable delay in passing Ext.P2 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. 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 KAA(P) 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.

7. 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 the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances, and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down on that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting the number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is an undue and long delay betwee