Detention orders under the KAA(P) Act necessitate timely proposals, as undue delays can sever the necessary link to justify detention.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition has been directed against an order of detention dated 14.10.2025 passed against one Shahid, under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act , 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu. The detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 16.12.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of detention.

2. The records available before us disclose that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, on 25.08.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority. 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.

3. Altogether, four cases were considered by the detaining authority for issuing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.676/2025 of Mannuthy Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 29(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 74 and 110 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”) and the detenu was arrayed as the sole accused in the said case.

4. We have heard Sri. Jithin Babu A., 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. According to the counsel, there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal by the sponsoring authority, as well as in passing the impugned order by the competent authority, after the last prejudicial activity, rendering the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention snapped. The learned counsel urged that, if the sponsoring authority was having any bonafide apprehension regarding the repetition of criminal activities by the detenu, the authority would have acted swiftly in making the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act immediately after the registration of case with respect to the last prejudicial activity. Hence, the impugned order warrants interference on the ground of delay and is liable to be set aside.

6. 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.

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

8. The records show that the detenu was classified as a ‘known rowdy’ considering his involvement in four criminal cases. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.676/2025. While considering the contention of the petitioner, regarding the delay that occurred in sub