Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. The petitioner is the wife of one Jasim ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P2 order of detention dated 05.12.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity).

2. The records reveal that it was after considering the involvement of the detenu in two criminal cases that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, on 27.10.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.563/2025 of Vengara Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Smt. Saipooja, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned by way of this writ petition has been passed on improper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel, there is an unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the detention order after the date of the last prejudicial activity, and the said long delay in submitting the proposal and in passing the detention order will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the detention. On these premises, the learned counsel urged to set aside the impugned order.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no unreasonable delay in passing Ext.P2 detention order. He urged that some minimal delay is inevitable while mooting the proposal as the sponsoring authority needs a reasonable time to collect the details of the cases in which the detenu was involved, and for verification of records. According to the counsel, the minimum delay in submitting the proposal is quite natural, and the same is only negligible.

6. While considering the contention of the petitioner, regarding the delay that occurred in submitting the proposal for detention and 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.

7. In T.A.Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, [1990 SCC Cri 76], the Apex Court held that the question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances, and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down on that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting the number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is an undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of the detention order, the court has to scrutinize whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned when called upon to answer and further the court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case.

8. Keeping in mind the above principles, while coming to the facts in the present case, it can be seen altogether two cases formed the basis for passing Ext.P2 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.563/2025 of Vengara Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 29.08.2025, and the detenu who is arrayed as the second accused in that case, was arrested on the same day. Subsequently, he got bail on 09.10.2025. Notably, it was thereafter, on 27.10.2025, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was initiated against him. Therefore, it is decipherable that there is a delay of around two months in submitting the proposal after the commission of the last prejudicial activity. However, while considering the delay that occurred in mooting the proposal, it cannot be undermined that from 29.08.2025, the date of occurrence of the last prejudicial activity, till 09.10.2025, the detenu was under judicial custody. As the detenu was in jail during that period, there was no basis for any apprehension regarding the immediate repetition of criminal activities by the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the delay that occurred in mooting the proposal is of no serious significance.

9. However, from a perusal of the impugned order, it is gatherable that although the proposal was forwarded on 27.10.2025, the detention order was passed only on 05.12.2025.        The delay that occurred in passing the order after the date of the proposal cannot be undermined, particularly when only two cases formed the basis for passing the detention order. Moreover, while considering the question whether the delay in passing the order is crucial or not, the important aspect that needs consideration is the reason for the said delay. If there is any plausible explanation for the delay, the same can be justified. However, in the case at hand, no convincing explanation has been offered by the jurisdictional authority in the impugned order for the delay that occurred in passing the detention order.

10. If the jurisdictional authority had a bona fide apprehension regarding the repetition of anti-social activities, it would have acted swiftly after the receipt of the proposal. If the true objective was to prevent the detenu from engaging in anti-social activities, the authority ought to have acted with greater alacrity in passing the detention order. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention has been snapped.

11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P2 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of High Security Prison, Viyyur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri.Jasim, forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.

                  The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Superintendent of High Security Prison, Viyyur, forthwith.