Delay in proposing detention under the KAA(P) Act can undermine its legal validity if not justified.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

12.04.2024 passed against one Abdul Kareem, the detenu, under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the friend of the detenu. The said detention order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 07.12.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that, on 15.03.2024, after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu underSection 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 underSection 2(p) (iii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether, twenty-two cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the detaining authority for passing the detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1234/2023 of Kottakkal Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable underSections 457, 380, 461, 379, 201 r/w 34 of theIndian Penal Code 3. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order was passed without proper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel, there is 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 the said premise, it was urged that the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor asserted that there is no unreasonable delay either in submitting the proposal or in passing the Ext.P1 detention order after the commission of the last prejudicial activity. However, some minimal delay is inevitable, as a reasonable amount of time is required for the collection and verification of records, particularly when twenty-two cases formed the basis for passing Ext. P1 detention order. The learned Public Prosecutor further urged that the detaining authority passed Ext.P1 order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.

7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the records. As evident from the records, altogether twenty-two cases formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1234/2023 of Kottakkal Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 457 , 380, 461, 379, 201 r/w 34 of the IPC . The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 16.10.2023. The detenu, who is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case, was arrested on 23.10.2023. Subsequently, he was released on bail on 20.12.2023. Notably, it was thereafter, on 15.03.2024, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was initiated against him. Virtually, there is a delay of five months in mooting the proposal