The court held that unreasonable delays in detention proposals sever the essential link between actions and detention, violating procedural safeguards.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against Ext.P1 detention order dated

25.10.2025, passed against one Shamil, 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 mother of the detenu. The said detention order was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 12.01.2026, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year, from the date of detention.

2. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.510/2025 of Ponnani Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections

22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. Heard Smt. Noorji Noushad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned by way of this writ petition has been passed on improper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. The learned counsel further submitted that there is an unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal after the date of the last prejudicial activity, and the said long delay will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the detention. On the said premise, the learned counsel urged that Ext.P1 order warrants interference.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the Ext.P1 detention order. According to the learned Government Pleader, some minimal delay is inevitable while passing an order, especially when it is the duty of the authority to ensure adherence to the natural justice principles while passing such an order. According to him, the authority needs a reasonable time to collect and verify the details of the cases in which the detenu was involved, and therefore, the minimum delay in submitting the proposal is quite natural, and the same is only negligible

6. As already stated, altogether, four 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.510/2025 of Ponnani Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 (b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 17.04.2025. The detenu, who is arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case, was arrested on 13.05.2025. Subsequently, he was released on bail on 17.07.2025. Notably, it was thereafter, on 04.08.2025, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was forwarded. Virtually, there is a delay of more than three and a half months in mooting the proposal from the date of occurrence of the last prejudicial activity, and there is a delay of three weeks from the date of his release on bail. Of course, the delay occurred in mooting the proposal after the release of the detenu on bail cannot be viewed lightly. If the sponsoring authority had a bona fide apprehension regarding the likelihood of the detenu engaging in further criminal activities, it would certainly have acted with greater vigilance and initiated the proposal without delay.

7. The assertion by the learned Government Pleader that additional time was needed to collect and verify the details of the crimes before