Detention Order Under Kerala Anti‑Social Activities Act Set Aside Over Unexplained Delay; Live Link Found Snapped

A bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian heard a writ petition challenging a detention order dated 07.10.2025 passed under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAA(P) Act) against the petitioner, Sarath. The petition attacked the order confirmed by the State on 10.12.2025 on the ground that an inordinate and unjustified delay in initiating and passing the detention order had broken the causal link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention.

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the detention order. The Court concluded that the District Police Chief delayed more than three months in submitting the proposal after the last alleged prejudicial activity (occurring on 12.05.2025) and more than four-and-a-half months in passing the detention order, without offering a convincing or plausible explanation. The Court observed that "an order under Section 3(1) of KAA(P) Act has a significant impact on the personal as well as fundamental rights of an individual" and that 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." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Keeping in mind the above, while coming to the facts in the present case, it can be seen that, as already stated, there is a delay of more than three months in submitting the proposal after the commission of the last prejudicial activity. The said delay cannot be justified by saying that the same was necessary for observing natural justice principles. The assertion that additional time was needed to gather the details of the crimes before forwarding the proposal lacks credibility. In the case at hand, only five cases formed the basis for proposing and issuing the detention order. The details of those cases were readily available and could have been obtained without delay, given the technological upgradation attained by the Law Enforcement Authority. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the delay in mooting the proposal is unreasonable and unjustifiable. If the District Police Chief was having bona fide apprehension regarding the repetition of anti-social activities by the detenu, definitely, he would have acted swiftly and with great alacrity in submitting the proposal at least after the release of the detenu on bail in the last case registered against him. Therefore, we are of the view that the delay in forwarding the proposal will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the impugned order." The Court directed immediate release of the detenu from Central Prison, Kannur, if detention was not required in connection with any other case.

Background The petitioner, aged 27, faced proceedings under the KAA(P) Act after the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, submitted a proposal on 21.08.2025 classifying him as a 'known rowdy' under Section 2(p)(iii). Five prior cases were relied upon by the jurisdictional authority (2nd respondent) in issuing the detention order dated 07.10.2025 which was later confirmed by the Government on 10.12.2025. The last prejudicial activity related to crime No.581/2025 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, arising from an incident on 12.05.2025; the petitioner was arrested on 13.05.2025 and released on bail on 28.07.2025. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay in mooting the proposal and passing the order severed the necessary proximate connection between the acts relied on and the preventive detention purpose. The State contended that statutory and natural justice requirements justified the time taken. The Court applied settled principles including the test of proximity as explained in T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala [(1989) 4 SCC 741], noting that there was no rigid temporal rule but that undue delay required satisfactory explanation and scrutiny as to whether the causal connection was broken. Finding the explanation for delay implausible—given only five cases provided the material and records were available—the Court held the live link was snapped, allowed the writ petition, set aside Ext.P1, and ordered release if no other detention grounds existed. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur forthwith.

Case No.: WP(Crl.) No. 88 of 2026 Case Title: Sarath v. State of Kerala & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri. Shibin K.F.; Sri. Shoby K. Francis For the Respondent(s): Sri. K.A. Anas, Public Prosecutor