Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 12.11.2025 passed against one Achu, S/o. Dharmarajan (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘PITNDPS Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the brother of the detenu.

2. The records reveal that on 12.09.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kollam City, the 3rd respondent, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, two cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order.

3. Out of the said cases considered, the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.2022/2025 of East Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The detenu is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case. The allegation in the said case is that on 19.07.2025, the 1st accused, along with other co-accused in this case, were found in possession of 3.869 gm of MDMA for the purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

4. We heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P2 detention order was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. According to the counsel, the detention order was passed 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 as well as passing the detention order, and the said delay will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. On these premises, it was urged that Ext.P2 order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that there is no unreasonable delay either in submitting the proposal or in passing Ext.P2 detention order. According to the Government Pleader, some minimal delay is inevitable while passing a detention order, especially when it is the duty of the authority to ensure adherence to the natural justice principles while passing such an order. Moreover, a reasonable time would be necessary for verifying the details of the cases in which the detenu is involved, and hence a minimal delay in passing the detention order is quite natural, and the same is justifiable. According to the learned Government Pleader, as the detaining authority passed Ext.P2 order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.

7. 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 an unexplained long delay in mooting the proposal and in passing the detention order, the same would certainly result in snapping of the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention.

8. 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.

9. Keeping in mind the above principles, while coming to the facts in the present case, it can be seen that the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.2022/2025 of East Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The incident which led to the registration of the said case occurred on 19.07.2025. The detenu who is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case was arrested on the same day and subsequently released on bail on 01.08.2025. The records further reveal that the District Police Chief, Kollam City, submitted the proposal to the competent authority for initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act on 12.09.2025. Virtually there is a delay of forty-two days in mooting the proposal after the release of the detenu from jail. The said delay cannot be justified as necessary for observing natural justice principles. As the detenu was on bail, there was every propensity of his being involved in criminal activities again. In the said background, the authorities should have been more vigilant and mooted the proposal without any delay.

10. That apart, as evident from the impugned order itself, after the receipt of the proposal, the Government had forwarded the same for the opinion of the screening committee only on 25.10.2025, i.e. after around one and a half months from the date of the proposal. The said delay is also not justifiable. Notably, no convincing explanation whatsoever has been offered by the jurisdictional authority in the impugned order for the long delay that occurred in mooting the proposal after the release of the detenu on bail. Moreover, only two cases formed the basis for passing Ext.P2 detention order. Therefore, the jurisdictional authority cannot contend that considerable time was required for collecting the records and verifying them, particularly since the documents were readily available with the authorities concerned and in view of the technological advancements achieved by the authorities and investigating agencies in our State.

11. If the jurisdictional authority had a bona fide apprehension regarding the repetition of anti-social activities, it would have acted swiftly, at least after the release of the detenu from jail on bail. 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 mooting the proposal as well as 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.

12. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and the Ext.P2 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu, Sri.Achu, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.

                  The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, forthwith.