Kerala High Court
Noorjahan Ummar vs State Of Kerala on 21 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:78017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 29TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1338 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NOORJAHAN UMMAR
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O UMMAR THOTTIYIL HOUSE, KANJAR,VELLIYAMATTOM
VILLAGE, KUDAYATHOOR P.O,THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN - 685590
BY ADV SRI.AJEESH M UMMER
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU P.O., PIN - 685603
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
ADVISORY BOARD, PIT NDPS, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, POOJAPURA, PIN - 695012
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1338 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:78017
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 15.07.2025, passed against one Rassal S/o. Ummer (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 mother
of the detenu. The detention order stands approved by the
Government vide order dated 28.09.2025, and the detenu has been
ordered to be detained for a period of one year from the date of
execution of the order.
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the
District Police Chief, Idukki, the 3rd respondent, on 17.03.2025,
seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section
3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd
respondent. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved
have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the
impugned order of detention. Out of the four cases considered, the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.499/2025 of Aluva East Police Station, alleging commission of
offenses punishable under Sections 8(a), 20(b)(ii)(B), and 29 of the
NDPS Act.
WP(Crl.) No.1338 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:78017
3. We heard Sri.Ajeesh M. Ummer, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A. Anas, the learned
Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order of detention
without proper application of mind and without arriving at the
requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the
counsel, there is an inordinate delay in passing the detention order,
and the said delay would certainly snap the livelink between the last
prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. On these premises,
it was urged that the impugned order of detention is liable to be set
aside.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted
that there is no unreasonable delay in passing the Ext.P1 detention
order after the commission of the last prejudicial activity by the
detenu. However, 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. The learned Government Pleader further urged that the
detaining authority passed Ext.P1 order after arriving at the
requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, no
interference is warranted in the impugned order.
WP(Crl.) No.1338 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:78017
6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced
and have perused the records.
7. While considering the contention of the petitioner
regarding the delay that occurred in passing the detention 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.
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
WP(Crl.) No.1338 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:78017
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.499/2025 of Aluva East Police Station, alleging commission
of offenses punishable under Sections 8(a), 20(b)(ii)(B), and 29 of the
NDPS Act. The date of occurrence of the incident that led to the
registration of the said case was on 03.03.2025, and he was arrested
on the same day. The records further reveal that the District Police
Chief, Idukki, submitted the proposal to the competent authority for
initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act on
17.03.2025, i.e., while the detenu was under judicial custody.
Therefore, it is decipherable that there is no unreasonable delay in
WP(Crl.) No.1338 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:78017
submitting the proposal after the commission of the last prejudicial
activity.
10. However, 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, and the said committee,
in turn, had examined the proposal in detail and submitted its
opinion that it is a fit case for issuing an order of detention under
Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. The said report showing the
opinion of the screening committee was received by the Government
on 12.06.2025. However, even after the receipt of the opinion of the
Advisory Board, there is a delay of more than one month in passing
the detention order. Notably, no explanation whatsoever has been
offered by the jurisdictional authority in the impugned order for the
long delay that occurred in passing the detention order, even after
the receipt of the report of the screening committee.
11. If the jurisdictional authority had a bona fide apprehension
regarding the repetition of anti-social activities, it would have acted
swiftly upon receiving the screening committee's report, instead of
sitting over it for more than one month. 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
WP(Crl.) No.1338 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:78017
is that the livelink between the last prejudicial activity and the
purpose of detention has been snapped.
12. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P1 order
of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu,
Sri. Rassal 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 Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram,
forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.1338 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:78017
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1338/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO
SSC2/109/2025- HOME DATED 15-07-2025
