Timely initiation of detention orders is essential to uphold the legal validity and connect between the last prejudice act and the detention.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

29.11.2025, passed against one Muhammed Vahid (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. The said detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 10.02.2026, 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 05.11.2025, 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. Altogether, four 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.704/2025 of Nadakkavu Police Station, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 22 (b) of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri. M. Devesh, 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, and the same would certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. On the said premises, 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 forwarding the proposal and in passing the detention 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 the above principles in view and adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that four cases in which the detenu was allegedly involved formed the basis for the issuance of the detention order. However, the records disclose that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was forwarded by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, solely on the basis of the first three cases, namely Crime Nos. 40/2024 and 43/2024 of Para