Detention orders under PITNDPS Act require prompt action; unreasonable delays invalidate the objective if not justified.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

12.11.2025, passed against one Shamnas @ Chembri (herein after referred to as ‘detenu), under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘PITNDPS Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. The said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 19.01.2026, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that, on 01.08.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kollam City, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 1st respondent. On receipt of the said proposal, the Government has forwarded the same to the screening committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Law Secretary for opinion. However, the screening committee observed that the live link between the last crime mentioned in the said proposal and the purpose of detention has snapped and directed the sponsoring authority to resubmit the proposal if the accused is involved in further crimes. Thereafter, another case was registered against the detenu as crime No.2355/2025 (the case with respect to the last prejudicial activity) and the details of the said case were furnished to the Government who inturn had forwarded the same to the screening committee for opinion. Consquenlty, the screening committee reconsidered the proposal and filed a report to the Government opining that this is a fit case for issuing a detention order under the PITNDPS Act.

3. Altogether, seven cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order. Out of the said cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.2355/2025 of Karunagappally Police Station, alleging commission of offenses punishable under Sections 22 (b)

and 29 of the NDPS Act.

4. We heard Sri. Rinu S. Aswan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority without proper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned counsel, there is an inordinate delay 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. On the said premise, it was urged that the detention order is liable to be set aside.

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

8. While considering the contention of the petitioner, regarding the delay that occurred in passing the order, it cannot b