AMMINI vs STATE OF KERALA
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
TUESDAY, THE 8 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 17TH BHADRA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
AMMINI
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O JOY, THANNAPILLY HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN
- 682502
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
SHRI.MUHAMMAD A. P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682035
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
2
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN -
682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR, PIN - 670004
OTHER PRESENT:
O.A.NURIYA-SR.PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
3
JUDGMENT
th
Dated this the 8 day of September, 2026
Soumen Sen , C.J.
This writ petition is filed by the mother of the detenu,
Shri. Renjith @ Renju challenging Ext.P1 detention order dated
10th December, 2025 under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P)A, for short] and
rd
Ext.P2 Government Confirmation order dated 23 February,
2026, by which the detention order was subsequently
confirmed.
2. The process leading to the issuance of the detention
order commenced with the proposal submitted by the District
Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, who, in his capacity as the
th
Sponsoring Authority, forwarded the report dated 18 October,
2025 to the detaining authority recommending action under
Section 3(1) of the KAA(P)A. The detaining authority issued the
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
4
th
detention order dated 10 December, 2025 under the KAA(P)A
for a period of six months. Thus, the detenu was arrested on
th
13 December, 2025 and he was detained in the Central
Prison, Viyyur and later he was shifted to the Central Prison,
Kannur.
3. A perusal of the detention order would reveal that it is
founded on seven criminal cases involving the detenu. The first
adverse case relied upon by the Detaining Authority is Crime
No. 1302 of 2019 of Njarakkal Police Station, registered for
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b) and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short). The detenu was
nd
granted bail in the said case on 2 November, 2019 and the
investigation in the said case is completed and a charge sheet is
filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal
nd
on 2 November, 2019.
4. The second Crime relied on by the detaining authority
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
5
is Crime No. 37 of 2022 of Njarakkal Police Station, registered
under Sections 324 and 341 of the IPC. In the said crime, the
th
detenu was arrested on 12 January, 2022. The detenu was
granted bail in the said case on the day of arrest itself and the
investigation in the said case is completed and a charge sheet is
filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal
th
on 18 February, 2022.
5. The third Crime relied on by the detaining authority is
Crime No. 229 of 2022 of Njarakkal Police Station, registered
under Sections 120(B), 364(A), 365, 368, 342, 346, 323, 324,
506(ii), 201 and 34 of the IPC. In the said crime, the detenu
was arrested on 22nd February, 2022 and bail was granted to
the detenu on 5th May, 2022, in Crl.M.C No. 1000/2022 of the
Court of Session (Vacation Court), Ernakulam Division. The
investigation in the said case is completed and a charge sheet is
filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
6
nd
on 02 April, 2023.
6. The fourth Crime relied on by the detaining authority is
Crime No. 63 of 2024 of Njarakkal Police Station, registered
under Sections 452, 427 and 34 of the IPC. In the said crime,
th
the detenu was arrested on 14 January, 2024 and bail was
th
granted on 20 January, 2024 in CMP No. 71 of 2024 of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal. The
investigation in the said case is completed and the charge sheet
is submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
th
Njarakkal on 14 January, 2024.
7. The fifth Crime relied on by the detaining authority is
Crime No. 504 of 2024 of Munambam Police Station, registered
under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 34 of the IPC. In the said
crime, the detenu was arrested on 29th June, 2024 and he was
released on station bail and charge sheet was filed on the same
day.
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
7
8. The sixth Crime relied on by the detaining authority is
Crime No. 339 of 2025 of Njarakkal Police Station, registered
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 296(b) of the BNS. In the said
crime, the detenu was arrested on 24th March, 2025 and bail
was granted to the detenu on the same day itself. The
investigation in the said case was completed and a charge sheet
was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Njarakkal on 2nd June, 2025.
9. The seventh Crime that is the last prejudicial activity
relied on by the detaining authority is Crime No. 1077 of 2025
of Njarakkal Police Station, registered under Sections 109,
115(2), 118(1), 3(5) of BNS. In the said crime, the detenu was
th
arrested on 15 September, 2025 and bail was granted to the
rd
detenu on 3 December, 2025 in Crl.M.C No. 3539 of 2024 of
the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
10. On a consideration of the materials placed on record,
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
8
it appears that the impugned detention order dated 10th
December, 2025 is the third detention order issued against the
detenu. The detenu had earlier undergone detention under the
th
KAA(P)A for a period of 6 months from 18th May, 2010 to 17
November, 2010 and he was externed earlier under section 15
of the KAA(P)A for a period of one year.
11. The Government approved the impugned detention
nd
order on 22 December, 2025. The case was thereafter referred
to the Advisory Board under Section 9 of the KAA(P)A. The
Advisory Board, after considering the relevant records and
hearing the detenu, reported that there was sufficient cause for
his detention. The Government thereafter considered the matter
afresh, including the relevant records, the opinion of the
Advisory Board and the representation submitted by the
detenu, and confirmed the detention under Section 3(3) of the
rd
KAA(P)A by Government Confirmation Order dated 23
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
9
February, 2026, directing that the detenu be continued in
detention for a period of 6 months.
12. The first contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the mandatory requirements under Section 7
of the KAA(P)A have not been complied with. According to the
learned counsel, the records do not disclose that the detention
order was duly read over to the detenu or that he was informed
in writing, under acknowledgment, of his right to make a
representation to the Government and before the Advisory
Board. It was submitted that no material was produced along
with the detention proceedings to establish due compliance
with the statutory requirements.
13. The Learned counsel also submitted that the Exts.P1
and P2 orders are illegal, arbitrary and vitiated by errors
apparent on the face of the record and are, therefore, liable to
be quashed. It was contended that the Detaining Authority
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
10
failed to apply its mind to the relevant materials before passing
Ext.P1 order and that the order was issued in a mechanical
manner without due consideration of the materials placed
before it. According to the learned counsel, the non-application
of mind is evident from the contents of Ext.P1 itself and, on
that ground alone, the detention order is liable to be interfered
with.
14. The Learned counsel further submitted that the
statutory requirements under the KAA(P)A are mandatory in
nature and that non-compliance with the safeguards prescribed
under the KAA(P)A has caused serious prejudice to the detenu.
It was contended that the detention order, together with the
entire records, ought to have been forwarded to the
Government and the State Police Chief for verification and
approval in terms of Section 3(3) of the KAA(P)A. According to
the learned counsel, Ext.P1 detention order does not disclose
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
11
that copies of the detention order and the connected records
were forwarded to the authorities in the manner mandated
under the KAA(P)A.
15. The learned counsel further submitted that there was
a delay of 35 days in sponsoring the case of the detenu from the
date of the last prejudicial activity and there is a delay of nearly
three months between the last prejudicial activity and the
passing of Ext.P1 detention order. It was submitted that the
very object of preventive detention, namely, immediate
prevention of prejudicial activities, would stand defeated by
such unexplained delay. The learned counsel submitted that
there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay and that the
same vitiates the detention proceedings.
16. The Learned counsel also submitted that the
continued detention of the detenu on the ground that the
representation submitted on his behalf, produced as Ext.P3,
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
12
was not duly considered. It was submitted that the non-
consideration of the representation has seriously prejudiced the
detenu and has affected his valuable constitutional right to
make an effective representation against his detention.
17. Lastly the learned counsel had submitted that the
detenu was not supplied with a legible copy of the documents
relied upon in support of the detention. It was submitted that
the supply of illegible documents deprived the detenu of a
meaningful opportunity to understand the materials relied
upon against him and consequently impaired his right to make
an effective representation.
18. On the above grounds, learned counsel for the
th
petitioner submitted that the detention order dated 10
December, 2025 and the Government confirmation order dated
rd
23 February, 2026 are illegal and unsustainable and that the
detenu is entitled to be released from detention.
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
13
19. Per contra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents supported the impugned
detention order and submitted that the same was passed by the
competent authority after due consideration of the criminal
antecedents and subsequent activities of the detenu.
20. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that
the detenu is a habitual offender who has been continuously
and repeatedly involved in grave offences affecting public peace,
order and safety in Ernakulam District. According to the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor, a comprehensive report
detailing the anti-social activities of the detenu was submitted
by the Sponsoring Authority and the basis of the said report
and the materials placed before her, the Detaining Authority
independently considered the materials and arrived at the
requisite satisfaction before issuing Ext.P1 detention order
th
dated 10 December, 2025 under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P)A.
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
14
21. With regard to the contention relating to non-
compliance with Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the KAA(P)A and the
alleged supply of illegible documents, the learned Senior
Government Pleader submitted that the detenu was arrested
th
and placed under detention on 13 December, 2025 and was
th
admitted to Central Prison, Viyyur on 14 December, 2025,
from where he was subsequently shifted to Central Prison,
Kannur. It was submitted that, at the time of execution of the
detention order, all mandatory statutory requirements under
Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the KAA(P)A were duly complied with.
22. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that
the arresting officer had read over and explained the contents of
the detention order and the grounds of detention to the detenu
in his mother tongue, namely Malayalam. A complete and
legible set of the detention order, grounds and all documents
relied upon was also served upon the detenu under written
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
15
acknowledgment and the detenu was further informed in
writing of his constitutional and statutory right to make
representations against his detention before the Detaining
Authority, the State Government and the KAA(P)A Advisory
Board. The Learned Senior Public Prosecutor, therefore,
contended that the allegation of violation of Section 7 of the
KAA(P)A or non-supply of legible documents is wholly
unfounded.
23. With regard to the contention relating to Section 3(3)
of the KAA(P)A, it was submitted that the detention order was
th
executed on 13 December, 2025 and that the statutory
procedure contemplated under Section 3(3) was duly followed.
nd
According to the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, the 2
respondent forwarded the detention order, together with the
grounds and all relevant records, to the State Government and
the State Police Chief within the statutory period. It was further
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
16
submitted that the State Government, after scrutinising the
materials, approved the detention order within the prescribed
nd
period of 12 working days by Order of Approval dated 22
December, 2025.
24. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor further
submitted that, in accordance with the statutory procedure, the
case of the detenu was placed before the Advisory Board under
Section 9 of the KAA(P)A. The Advisory Board, consisting of a
former Judge of this Court and a retired District Judge,
considered the matter after affording a personal hearing, which
th
was conducted through Google Meet on 4 February, 2026.
According to the respondents, the Advisory Board considered
the entire records as well as the representation submitted on
behalf of the detenu and opined that there was sufficient cause
for the continued detention of the detenu.
25. It was further submitted that the Advisory Board
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
17
noticed that the detenu had undergone preventive detention for
a period of six months in the year 2010, prior to the
st
amendment of Section 12 of the KAA(P)A on 31 December,
2014. According to the respondents, on that account, the
maximum detention period of one year was not applicable in
the present case and the Advisory Board recommended
confirmation of the detention for a period of six months.
26. With regard to the last prejudicial activity, the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that Crime No.1077 of 2025
of Njarakkal Police Station was registered against the detenu for
offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2) and 118(1) read
with Section 3(5) of the BNS. The detenu was stated to be the
prime accused in the said crime, which, according to the
respondents, involved a serious assault affecting public order.
It was further submitted that the invocation of the preventive
detention law became necessary since the ordinary law, the
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
18
history-sheet proceedings against the detenu, earlier
proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C./Section 126 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and other
restrictive measures, including externment proceedings, had
failed to deter him from continuing his criminal activities.
27. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor refuted the
contention regarding delay between the last prejudicial activity
and the passing of the detention order. It was submitted that
th
the last prejudicial activity occurred on 14 September, 2025
th
and that the detenu was arrested on 15 September, 2025 and
rd
that he was released on bail on 3 December, 2025. According
to the respondents, the period during which the detenu
remained in custody has to be excluded while considering the
alleged delay. It was further submitted that the preliminary
th
report was submitted by the Station House Officer on 13
October, 2025 and the report of the Sponsoring Authority was
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
19
th
submitted on 18 October, 2025. The detention order was
th
thereafter passed on 10 December, 2025.
28. It was submitted that the time taken in the
intervening period was utilised for investigation, collection of
the relevant criminal records and detailed examination of the
materials, and that the delay, if any, cannot be characterised as
unexplained or unreasonable. According to the Learned Senior
Public Prosecutor, the live link between the last prejudicial
activity and the necessity for preventive detention remained
intact and unbroken.
29. With regard to the contention regarding non-
consideration of Ext.P3 representation, the learned Senior
th
Public Prosecutor submitted that the representation dated 15
December, 2025 submitted by the petitioner on behalf of the
st
detenu was duly received by the 1 respondent and was
processed and considered in accordance with law. It was
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
20
submitted that, upon consideration of the contents of the
representation, the Government found that the grounds stated
therein did not warrant release of the detenu from detention
and accordingly rejected the representation. A formal reply was
th
furnished to the detenu on 26 December, 2025 and another
th
representation dated 15 December, 2025 submitted on behalf
of the detenu before the KAA(P)A Advisory Board was received
th
by the Government on 16 February, 2026 along with the
report of the Advisory Board. The said representation was also
considered and rejected and a reply was furnished to the
th
detenu on 24 February, 2026. It was therefore contended that
all representations submitted for and on behalf of the detenu
were duly considered by the competent authority.
30. Lastly, the learned Senior Government Pleader
submitted that on the remaining contentions the allegations
raised by the petitioner are contrary to the factual and
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
21
statutory position. It was contended that all actions taken by
the respondents were valid and in strict compliance with the
provisions of the KAA(P)A and Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the
Constitution of India. According to the respondents, the
detention order is supported by sufficient material
demonstrating the threat posed by the detenu to public order
and the necessity for his preventive detention.
31. On the aforesaid submissions, the learned Senior
Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
32. We have heard Mr. M.H. Hanis, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Ms. O.A Nuriya, learned Senior Public
Prosecutor.
33. We shall first deal with the contention regarding the
alleged delay in passing the order of detention. According to the
petitioner, there was inordinate delay between the last
prejudicial activity attributed to the detenu and the issuance of
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
22
the detention order. It is contended that such delay has the
effect of snapping the live and proximate link between the
prejudicial activities relied upon and the subjective satisfaction
arrived at by the detaining authority.
34. It is well settled that the prejudicial activities relied
upon must bear a live and proximate nexus with the order of
detention. If there is undue and unexplained delay in passing
the detention order, such delay may, in a given case, has the
effect of snapping the nexus between the prejudicial activities
and the purpose sought to be achieved by the detention. At the
same time, where the delay is satisfactorily explained by the
time consumed in investigation, collection of materials,
administrative processing, scrutiny by the sponsoring and
screening authorities and consideration by the Government, the
detention order cannot be invalidated merely on the ground of
lapse of time.
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
23
35. To ascertain whether the live and proximate link gets
snapped, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
1
Supreme Court in T.A Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala
wherein the Apex Court has reiterated an observation in Golam
2
Hussain v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta as follows:-
“ 10 . The conspectus of the above decisions can be
summarised thus: 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 in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is
not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number
of months between the offending acts and the order of
detention. However, when there is undue and long delay
between the prejudicial activities and the passing of
detention order, the court has to scrutinise 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
1 (1989) 4 SCC 741
2 (1974) 4 SCC 530
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
24
36. In Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil
3
Nadu , the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the phrase “live
and proximate link” in the following words:
6.“ It is further true that there must be a “live and
proximate link” between the grounds of detention alleged
by the detaining authority and the avowed purpose of
detention, namely the prevention of smuggling activities.
We may in appropriate cases assume that the link is
“snapped” if there is a long and unexplained delay
between the date of the order of detention and the arrest
of the detenu. In such a case, we may strike down an
order of detention unless the grounds indicate a fresh
application of the mind of the detaining authority to the
new situation and the changed circumstances. But where
the delay is not only adequately explained but is found to
be the result of the recalcitrant or refractory conduct of the
detenu in evading arrest, there is warrant to consider the
“link” not snapped but strengthened. ”
(emphasis supplied)
37. As regards the contention relating to the question of
delay, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
4
Supreme Court in the case of Licil Antony v. State of Kerala
3 (1979) 1 SCC 465
4 (2014) 11 SCC 326
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
25
wherein it was observed as follows:
“ 9. While dealing with the question of delay in making an
order of detention, the court is required to be circumspect
and has to take a pragmatic view. No hard-and-fast
formula is possible to be laid or has been laid in this
regard. However, one thing is clear that in case of delay,
that has to be satisfactorily explained. After all, the
purpose of preventive detention is to take immediate steps
for preventing the detenu from indulging in prejudicial
activity. If there is undue and long delay between the
prejudicial activity and making of the order of detention
and the delay has not been explained, the order of
detention becomes vulnerable. Delay in issuing the order
of detention, if not satisfactorily explained, itself is a
ground to quash the order of detention. No rule with
precision has been formulated in this regard. The test of
proximity is not a rigid or a mechanical test. In case of
undue and long delay the court has to investigate whether
the link has been broken in the circumstances of each
case. ”
(emphasis supplied)
5
38. Similarly in Adishwar Jain v. Union of India , it
was held as follows:
“ 15. Delay, as is well known, at both stages has to be
explained. The court is required to consider the question
5 (2006) 11 SCC 339
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
26
having regard to the overall picture. We may notice that in
Sk. Serajul v. State of W.B. [(1975) 2 SCC 78: 1975 SCC
(Cri) 425] this Court opined: (SCC p. 80, para 2)
“ There was thus delay at both stages and this delay,
unless satisfactorily explained, would throw considerable
doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of
the District Magistrate, Burdwan recited in the order of
detention. It would be reasonable to assume that if the
District Magistrate of Burdwan was really and genuinely
satisfied after proper application of mind to the materials
before him that it was necessary to detain the petitioner
with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial
manner, he would have acted with greater promptitude
both in making the order of detention as also in securing
the arrest of the petitioner, and the petitioner would not
have been allowed to remain at large for such a long period
of time to carry on his nefarious activities.”
(emphasis supplied)
6
39. This Court, in Anjana Das v. State of Kerala , has
reiterated that lack of promptitude may vitiate a detention
order . It was held as follows:
“ 11. 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, as well as the screening committee’s report. If
the true objective was to prevent the detenu from engaging
6 2026:KER:16817
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
27
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
40. We have carefully perused the records produced
before us. It is evident from the materials on record that the
last prejudicial activity relied upon by the detaining authority is
th
Crime No.1077/2025 dated 15 September, 2025. The detenu
rd
was arrested on the same day and was enlarged on bail on 3
December, 2025. In the meantime, the Sponsoring Authority
th
submitted a proposal dated 18 October, 2025, recommending
preventive detention of the detenu under the provisions of the
KAA(P)A. Upon consideration of the said proposal and the
materials placed before it, the detaining authority passed the
th
detention order dated 10 December, 2025, without considering
adequacy of the bail conditions. The bail conditions have not
even been referred to in the detention order. It proceeds on the
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
28
basis that in the past the alleged detenu had violated the bail
conditions. If it were to mean the violation of bail conditions
nd
mentioned in the order dated 2 June, 2025, there was no
explanation offered for non-filing of an application for
cancellation of the bail. This issue came up for consideration in
th
our judgment in W.P.(Crl.)No.812 of 2026 dated 14 August,
2026 (Ayammakutty P. v. State of Kerala and Others) in which
this Court has held:
“43. The third issue that arises for consideration is
whether the Detaining Authority has exercised the
remedy of cancellation of bail before resorting to the
measures of preventive detention under PITNDPS
Act.
44. In the above context, it is relevant to refer to a
recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala & Others12.
The said Special Leave Petition and the Criminal
Appeal arose from the final judgment of this Court in
th
W.P.(Crl.) No.874/2024, dated 4 September, 2024.
This Court had affirmed the order of detention. The
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
29
appellant’s husband, Rajesh, was kept under
preventive detention in prison in terms of Section 3
of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Preventive) Act,
2007 [KAA(P)A]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court granted
leave and allowed the Criminal Appeal, finding that,
in view of the attending facts and circumstances, the
case would not fall under the category of a public
order situation, as the detention order did not
ascribe any reason as to how the actions of the
detenu were against the public order of the State.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court granted leave and
allowed the Criminal Appeal, finding that, in view of
the attending facts and circumstances, the case
would not fall under the category of a public order
situation, as the detention order did not ascribe any
reason as to how the actions of the detenu were
against the public order of the State, and further
observed that the State had not filed any application
for cancellation of bail in respect of the earlier cases.
45. In Dhanya M. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the above context, has observed in paragraphs 20,
21 and 22 as follows:
“20. Moreover, it has been stated therein by the
authority that the detenu is violating the conditions
of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
30
considered for passing the order of detention.
However, pertinently, no application has been filed
by the respondent-State in any of the four cases,
alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and
moreover, have not even been spelt out here.
21. This Court in SK. Nazneen (supra), had observed
that the State should move for cancellation of bail of
the detenu, instead of placing him under the law of
preventive detention, which is not the appropriate
remedy. Similarly, in Ameena Begum v. State of
Telangana, this Court observed:
“59.… It is pertinent to note that in the three
criminal proceedings where the detenu had been
released on bail, no applications for cancellation of
bail had been moved by the State. In the light of the
same, the provisions of the Act, which is an
extraordinary statute, should not have been resorted
to when ordinary criminal law provided sufficient
means to address the apprehensions leading to the
impugned detention order. There may have existed
sufficient grounds to appeal against the bail orders,
but the circumstances did not warrant the
circumvention of ordinary criminal procedure to
resort to an extraordinary measure of the law of
preventive detention.”
60. In Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [Vijay
Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 3 SCC 14 :
1984 SCC (Cri) 361], Hon'ble E.S. Venkataramiah, J.
(as the Chief Justice then was) observed : (SCC pp.
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
31
35-36, para 32)
32.…It is well settled that the law of preventive
detention is a hard law and therefore it should be
strictly construed. Care should be taken that the
liberty of a person is not jeopardised unless his case
falls squarely within the four corners of the relevant
law. The law of preventive detention should not be
used merely to clip the wings of an accused who is
involved in a criminal prosecution. It is not intended
for the purpose of keeping a man under detention
when under ordinary criminal law it may not be
possible to resist the issue of orders of bail, unless
the material available is such as would satisfy the
requirements of the legal provisions authorising such
detention. When a person is enlarged on bail by a
competent criminal court, great caution should be
exercised in scrutinising the validity of an order of
preventive detention which is based on the very same
charge which is to be tried by the criminal court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we
have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be
sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the
order by the detaining authority may be ground
enough for the State to approach the competent
Courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said
that the same warranted his preventive detention.
We clarify that if such an application for cancellation
of the detenu's bail is made by the respondent-State,
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
32
the same must be decided uninfluenced by the
observations made hereinabove.” (emphasis supplied)
46. In Dhanya M. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has also reiterated at paragraph 9 as follows:
“It is well settled that the provision for preventive
detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of
the State that must be used sparingly. It curtails the
liberty of an individual in anticipation of the
commission of further offence(s), and therefore,
must not be used in the ordinary course of nature.”
(emphasis supplied)
47. The principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vijay Narain Singh (supra) and Dhanya M.
(supra) unequivocally underscore that preventive
detention is an extraordinary measure which can be
invoked only when the ordinary remedies available under
the criminal law are found to be ineffective or
inadequate. The power of preventive detention is not
intended to supplant the ordinary criminal process but
to supplement it in exceptional situations where the
latter has demonstrably failed to prevent the detenu from
engaging in prejudicial activities. ”
The failure of the Detaining Authority to consider the material
relating to the cancellation of bail, despite its direct relevance
to the necessity and imperative nature of resorting to preventive
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
33
detention, amounts to non-application of mind and vitiates the
subjective satisfaction. The impugned detention order is,
therefore, liable to be set aside.
41. It is noted that the above detention order had been
rd
confirmed by the Government by order dated 23 February,
2026, whereby the detenu was directed to be detained for a
period of six months.
42. The materials placed before us disclose considerable
delay at every stage of the proceedings. The impugned detention
order dated 10th December, 2025 came to be passed 87 days
after the last alleged prejudicial activity dated 14th September,
2025 in Crime No.1077/2025. The sponsoring authority had
submitted the proposal dated 18th October,2025 with a delay
of 34 days from the date of the last prejudicial activity. No
reasonable explanation offered by the detaining authority in the
said delay in the impugned detention order.
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
34
43. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the
unexplained delay of 87 days from the last prejudicial activity
and the delay of 34 days for the submission of the proposal, we
are of the considered view that the live and proximate link
between the alleged prejudicial activities and the necessity for
preventive detention stands snapped. Consequently, the
subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority
cannot be sustained.
44. We have already discussed the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.A. Abdul Rahman (supra),
Licil Antony (supra), Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji (supra),
Adishwar Jain (supra) and the aforesaid principles have also
been applied by this Court in Anjana Das (supra), wherein it
has been consistently held that, although no rigid period is
prescribed for passing an order of preventive detention, every
substantial period of delay must be satisfactorily explained and
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
35
the Court must examine whether the live and proximate nexus
between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention
has been maintained. In the present case, the explanation
offered by the respondents is only a broad reference to the
movement of the proposal through various departmental
authorities. No material has been placed before this Court
explaining the necessity for the considerable time consumed at
each stage of the proceedings. The chronology of events reveals
unexplained intervals in processing the proposal even after the
Sponsoring Authority had initiated preventive detention
proceedings and after the detenu had been released on bail. In
the absence of any specific and convincing explanation for such
delay, we are unable to hold that the respondents have
discharged the burden cast upon them under law.
45. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the considered view that the delay in passing the
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
36
detention order has not been satisfactorily explained. The
unexplained delay has the effect of snapping the live and
proximate nexus between the alleged prejudicial activities and
the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority.
Consequently, the detention order is rendered unsustainable.
Accordingly, the issue relating to the delay in passing the
detention order are answered in favour of the petitioner.
46. Thus, the other grounds urged by the petitioner,
namely, alleged non-compliance with Section 7 of the KAA(P)A,
alleged violation of Section 3(3), non-consideration of the
representation, supply of illegible documents and non-
application of mind, do not, on the materials before us, warrant
interference with the detention order.
47. Preventive detention is an exceptional measure and
the power is intended to prevent the commission of prejudicial
activities in future. The authority exercising such power must,
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
37
therefore, act with reasonable promptitude. Where there is a
substantial delay between the last prejudicial activity and the
passing of the detention order, the respondents are required to
furnish a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the delay.
In the present case, the last prejudicial activity relied upon by
th
the detaining authority occurred on 14 September, 2025. The
th
Sponsoring Authority submitted its proposal on 18 October,
2025, with a delay of 34 days. The detention order was
th
thereafter passed on 10 December, 2025, with a delay of 87
days after the occurrence of the last prejudicial activity.
Although the respondents have referred to investigation,
collection of records and administrative processing, no
satisfactory explanation has been placed before us for the time
consumed at the respective stages. The mere movement of the
proposal through the various authorities cannot, in the
circumstances of the present case, constitute a sufficient
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
38
explanation for the substantial delay.
48. The fact that the detenu remained in custody from
th rd
15 September, 2025 until 3 December, 2025 does not, by
itself, cure the delay in initiating and processing the preventive
detention proceedings. More importantly, after the detenu was
th
released on bail, the detention order was not passed until 10
December, 2025. The respondents have not placed before us
any material indicating that, during the intervening period,
there was a fresh application of mind to the necessity of
preventive detention or that any changed circumstance justified
the time consumed.
49. We accordingly hold that, though the other grounds
urged by the petitioner do not merit acceptance, the detention
order cannot be sustained on account of the unexplained delay
in passing the same. The issue relating to delay is answered in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. The
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
39
remaining issues are answered in favour of the respondents.
th
50. Accordingly, Ext.P1 detention order dated 10
December, 2025 and Ext.P2 Government Confirmation Order
rd
dated 23 February, 2026 cannot be sustained and are liable to
be quashed. This writ petition is allowed.
In view of the fact that the petitioner has already
undergone the detention and the period of detention is over on
th
12 June, 2026, granting relief by way of release does not arise.
Sd/-
Soumen Sen
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Syam Kumar V.M.
Judge
vpv
CNR : KLHC010335142026
2026:KER:68144
WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
40
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 710 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. DCEKM/12924/2025-M7
DATED 10.12.2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO.(RT).NO.681/2026/HOME
DATED 23.02.2026
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
15.12.2025 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING
THE EXT P3