Undue delay in passing a detention order undermines its validity when no reasonable explanation is given.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

26.08.2025, passed against one Shamnad Amiyan @ Kankan Bava @ Karim Bava (herein after referred to as ‘detenu), under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAAP Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu.

2. The records reveal that, on 24.07.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 3rd respondent. 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.321/2025 of Kolathur Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 127 (2), 115(1), 118(1), 137(2), 310(2) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

3. We heard Sri. Hamzath Ali V. K., 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 detention order 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 mooting the proposal as well as in passing the detention order, and the same 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.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no inordinate delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order, and hence, the petitioner could not be heard to say that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention was snapped.

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

7. While considering the contention of the petitioner, regarding the delay that occurred in passing the order, it cannot be ignored that an order under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) 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 subjective satisfaction. Furthermore, there exists no inflexible rule requiring a detention order to be issued within a specific time frame following the last prejudicial act. However, when there is undue delay in making the proposal and passing the detention order, the same would undermine its validity, particularly when no convincing or plausible explanation is offered for the delay.

8. Keeping in mind the above, while coming to the facts in the present case, it can be seen that the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.321/2025 of Kolathur Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 127 (2), 115(1), 118(1), 137(2), 310(2) and 110 of BNS .

The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 05.05.2025, and he was arrested only on 26