Delay in executing a detention order violates statutory mandates when not justified.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

03.09.2025, passed against one Aboobaker Sidique, S/o. Muhammed Kunji T.M (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu.

2. The records reveal that on 22.07.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kasaragod, the 3rd respondent, 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 got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the impugned detention order.

3. Out of the said cases considered for passing Ext.P1 detention order, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity against the detenu is Crime No.507/2025 Vidyanagar Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections

22(c) and 20(B) II A of the NDPS Act .

4. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order of detention was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. The learned counsel further submitted that, though the impugned order was passed on 03.09.2025, the same was executed only on 04.12.2025. According to the counsel, the said delay in executing the order is unjustifiable and will breach the statutory provision regarding the execution of such an order. On these premises, it was urged that Ext.P1 order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the detention order was passed after due application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite subjective as well as objective satisfaction. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, at the time the impugned order was passed, the detenu had been shifted from jail to the Government Mental Health Centre, Kozhikode, for treatment of his mental health condition. It was further submitted that, upon contacting the authorities of the Mental Health Centre, it was confirmed that the detenu was undergoing treatment and that the preventive detention order could be executed only after there was an improvement in his mental health condition. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the delay in executing the detention order occurred for the aforesaid reason, and therefore, the delay is justifiable.

6. Before considering the rival contention raised, it is to be noted that out of the five cases considered by the jurisdictional authority to pass Ext.P1 order, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.507/2025 Vidyanagar Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 20(B) II A of the NDPS Act . The date of occurrence of the incident, which led to the registration of the said case, was on 01.07.2025. The detenu was arrested on the same day and, since then, has been under judicial custody. Thereafter, on 22.07.2025, a proposal was forwarded by the sponsoring authority for the initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the detenu. It was on 03.09.2025 that the impugned order was passed. The sequence of the events narrated above reveals that there was no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order.

7. However, a perusal of the records reveals that although the impugned detention order was passed on 03.09.2025, it was executed only on 04.12.2025. Whil