Shajitha T.M vs State Of Kerala

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This writ of habeas corpus is filed by the wife of the detenu. The detention order was passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1988 (for short “PITNDPS Act”). The last prejudicial activity was on 15.06.2022. The sponsoring authority submitted the report on 13.10.2022. However, we see that the detention order was passed only on 08.03.2023. There is a delay about eight months and twenty one days in passing the detention order.

We perused the detention order. Nothing has been stated about the reason for the delay.

The purpose of the detention order is to prevent the repetition of commission of offences. If there is a considerable delay and it is not properly explained, the same would vitiate the detention order. The detention order is a serious matter touching the life and liberty of a citizen and it cannot be taken lightly in a sense to punish a person. The very object of the detention order will be lost if there is delay involved in passing the detention order. We note that in a serious matter like this where a person is involved in offcences under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, such person will have to be released for the reason that there is considerable delay in passing the detention order. The Court will be looking at the angle of personal liberty and justification for passing the detention order, while balancing the objective of law and liberty of an individual. The Court is able to form an opinion that, if the delay has been occasioned and it is not properly explained, the live-link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order is snapped. In this case, we have no other alternative but to hold that the live-link has been snapped and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.

The detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, provided, if his detention is not otherwise required under law.