High Court Sets Aside Detention Order Under PITNDPS Act Over Undue Delay

A bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian heard a writ petition challenging a detention order dated 12.11.2025 issued under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, passed against the detenu Shamnas @ Chembri; the petition was filed by his wife, Anjana Das P.

The Court allowed the petition and set aside the detention order (Ext.P1), directing the Superintendent of Central Prison and Correctional Home, Poojappura, to release the detenu forthwith if he was not required in connection with any other case. The Court held that the authority had not offered any convincing explanation for a delay of over a month after receipt of the screening committee’s report, which, in its view, had undermined the validity of the detention. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 PITNDPS 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." The Court further recorded that "the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention has been snapped."

Background

The writ petition was directed against the detention order dated 12.11.2025, which the Government had confirmed on 19.01.2026, ordering detention for one year from the date of detention. The prosecution history showed that the District Police Chief had submitted a proposal on 01.08.2025 for initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. The Government forwarded the proposal to the screening committee chaired by the Law Secretary; the committee initially observed that the "live link" between the last crime and the purpose of detention had snapped and asked the sponsoring authority to resubmit if further crimes occurred.

Subsequently, a fresh case (Crime No.2355/2025 of Karunagappally Police Station) was registered for alleged offences under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act arising from an incident on 26.09.2025; the detenu was arrested on the same day. The sponsoring authority resubmitted the proposal on 29.09.2025 and the screening committee reconsidered and opined that the case was fit for detention; the committee’s report reached the Government on 10.10.2025. The impugned detention order was issued on 12.11.2025.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the detaining authority had failed to apply its mind and had not reached the requisite objective and subjective satisfaction; it was urged that the inordinate delay snapped the live link and vitiated the detention. The Government Pleader defended the order, submitting that some minimal delay was inevitable and that the authority had reached the requisite satisfaction before passing the order.

The Court examined the chronology and concluded that while there was no delay in initiating the proposal, there was a delay of over one month after receipt of the screening committee’s report without any convincing explanation. The Court held that if the true objective had been to prevent recurrence of anti‑social activity, the authority ought to have acted with greater alacrity; consequently, the Court found that the live link had been snapped. The writ petition was allowed, Ext.P1 was set aside, and the detenu was directed to be released if not required in connection with any other case. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the prison superintendent forthwith.

Case No.: WP(Crl.) No. 308 of 2026 Case Title: Anjana Das P v. State of Kerala & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri. Rinu S. Aswan; Sri. S.R. Aneesh; Smt. Gopika H.H.; Smt. Shyni Das J.S.; Shri. Yadhu S. Aswan (Advocates) For the Respondent(s): Sri. K.A. Anas (Government Pleader)