Preventive Detention - Unreasonable delay in passing the order, resulting in a snapped live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention.

Preventive Detention Under Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act Invalidated for Snapped Link Between Crime and Detention Purpose

Kerala High Court Sets Aside Detention Order Due to Unreasonable Delay. Detention vitiated due to unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal for detention and passing the order, resulting in a snapped live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention.

Kerala High Court has quashed a preventive detention order against Akhil @ Bonda, under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, due to unreasonable delays in the proposal and execution of the order. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian, JJ., on September 16, 2025.

The case revolved around the preventive detention order dated August 8, 2025, mooted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, and challenged by the petitioner, Soumya, the mother of the detenu. The detenu was classified as a "known rowdy," based on his involvement in six criminal cases, including a recent offense under crime No. 860/2025 of Kodungallur Police Station, invoking sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The petitioner argued that the detention order was vitiated due to a delay of approximately two months after the last prejudicial activity. This delay, according to the petitioner, snapped the live link between the crime and the objective of detention, thus undermining its validity. The petitioner contended that if the authorities genuinely feared the repetition of anti-social activities, they would have acted swiftly.

The government, represented by Pleader Sri. K.A. Anas, defended the delay as inevitable, citing the need to adhere to principles of natural justice and the time required to gather case details. However, the court found this explanation unsatisfactory, noting that technological advancements should have allowed for faster data collection. The court pointed out that the delay was admitted in the impugned order itself, which cited the need for additional time to collect case details as the reason.

The judgment emphasized that detention orders have profound implications on personal and fundamental rights and must not be issued casually. The court observed that the delay exhibited a lack of genuine apprehension about the immediate threat posed by the detenu, thus invalidating the detention order.

In conclusion, the Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the release of Akhil @ Bonda from detention, unless required in connection with any other case. This decision underscores the judiciary's vigilant protection of individual rights against arbitrary state actions and reinforces the need for timely and reasoned decisions in matters of preventive detention.

Soumya v. State of Kerala, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2779829