Preventive detention laws allow for detention despite alternative remedies when imminent danger from criminal activity exists.

The petitioner herein is the mother of one Muhammed Shamar ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and his challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 25.09.2025, passed by the 1st respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS Act for brevity).

2. The records reveal that, on 03.07.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority. Altogether, two cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.475/2025 of Ottappalam Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections

22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Smt. Sruthi Rajith, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. According to the counsel, there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the detention order, and the said delay would certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. The learned counsel submitted that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order in a hasty manner without considering the fact that there was an effective remedy of cancellation of the bail granted to the detenu. According to the counsel, as an alternative remedy was available to deter the detenu from repeating criminal activities, a drastic measure of preventive detention was not at all necessitated. The learned counsel further submitted that there is a delay of more than three months in executing the detention order from the date of its issuance, and the said delay is not justifiable. On these premises, it was urged that the detention order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader 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 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. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the jurisdictional authority passed the detention order after being fully satisfied that recourse to ordinary criminal laws, including cancellation of bail, was insufficient, thereby necessitating the issuance of the preventive detention order. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that there is no unreasonable delay in executing the order after its issuance. However, there occurred a nominal delay in executing the order as the detenu went absconded after obtaining bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity.

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 PITNDPS 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 sub