Undue delay in detention order processes can undermine its validity, impacting fundamental rights.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition has been directed against an order of detention dated 22.07.2025 passed against one Femis, S/o. Abbas under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu. The detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 18.09.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year from the date of detention.

2. The records available before us disclose that, on 11.06.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2p (iii) of the KAA(P) Act. For passing Ext.P1 detention order, the jurisdictional authority reckoned ten cases in which the detenu got involved. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.726/2025 of Tirur Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 137(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 310(2) and 351(1) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”).

3. We have 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 submits that the impugned order is vitiated, as it has been passed without proper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned counsel, there was an inordinate delay both in mooting the proposal by the sponsoring authority and in passing the impugned order by the competent authority after the date of the last prejudicial activity, thereby snapping the live and proximate link between the said activity and the purpose of detention. The learned counsel further contended that, had the sponsoring authority entertained any bona fide apprehension regarding the likelihood of the detenu repeating criminal activities, it would have acted with promptitude in initiating the proposal for proceedings under the KAA(P) Act. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order warrants interference on the ground of delay and is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, asserted that there is no unreasonable delay either in submitting the proposal or in passing Ext.P1 detention order after the last prejudicial activity. However, 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 collecting the details of the cases in which the detenu is involved, and minimal delay in mooting the proposal and passing the order is quite natural and hence justifiable. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the detaining authority passed Ext.P1 order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and no interference is warranted.

6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records.

7. The records show that the detenu was classified as a “known rowdy”, considering his recurrent involvement in ten cases. 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 KAA(P) Act has a significant impact on the personal as well as fundamen