JUDGMENT : Jobin Sebastian, J. This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 02.09.2025 passed against one Riyad S/o. Badarudheen (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. 2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, the 3rd respondent, on 13.06.2025, 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 impugned order of detention. Out of the two cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.39/2025 of Pozhiyoor Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(b), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. We heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, 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 impugned order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority 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 mooting the proposal as well as in passing the detention order, and the said delay would certainly snap the live link 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, Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader, asserted that there is no unreasonable delay either in submitting the proposal or in passing the Ext.P2 detention order after the last prejudicial activity. 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 pointed out that a hasty action under the PITNDPS Act is not at all desirable, especially when an order of detention has a heavy bearing on the personal and fundamental rights of a citizen. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that a hasty action under the PITNDPS Act is not at all desirable, especially when an order of detention has a heavy bearing on the personal and fundamental rights of a citizen. The learned Government Pleader further urged that the detaining authority passed Ext.P2 order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 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 submitting the proposal for detention and 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 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 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. 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.39/2025 of Pozhiyoor Police Station. The last prejudicial activity was committed on 09.01.2025, and he was arrested on the same day. It was thereafter, on 11.06.2025, that the detenu was released on bail. The records further reveal that the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, submitted the proposal to the competent authority for initiation of proceedings under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act on 13.06.2025. Therefore, it is decipherable that there is a delay of more than five months in submitting the proposal after the commission of the last prejudicial activity. Likewise, the impugned order of detention was passed only on 02.09.2025, i.e., after around eight months from the date of the last prejudicial activity. The said delay cannot be justified as necessary for observing natural justice principles. 10. We are not oblivious of the fact that from 09.01.2025 till 11.06.2025, the detenu was under judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, there was no imminent danger regarding the repetition of criminal activity by the detenu. However, the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was mooted only after the release of the detenu from jail on bail, and that too after more than five months from the date of the last prejudicial activity. However, the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was mooted only after the release of the detenu from jail on bail, and that too after more than five months from the date of the last prejudicial activity. If the sponsoring authority had any bona fide apprehension regarding the repetition of criminal activities by the detenu, it would have acted with more vigilance, and the proposal would have been mooted without unreasonable delay. At this juncture, it is to be further noted that the screening committee under the chairmanship of the Law Secretary 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 04.08.2025. Even thereafter, there is a delay of twenty-eight days 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 both in forwarding the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act and in passing the detention order. 11. If the District Police Chief, who mooted the proposal was having bona fide apprehension regarding the repetition of anti-social activities by the detenu, he would have acted swiftly after the last prejudicial activity. In the case at hand, as already stated, there is a delay of more than five months in mooting the proposal for the detention order. The delay in mooting the proposal itself shows that the proposed officer did not have any genuine apprehension regarding the immediate repetition of criminal activities by the detenu. If the true objective was to prevent the detenu from engaging in anti-social activities, the authorities ought to have acted with greater alacrity in submitting the proposal and issuing the consequent 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 Ext.P2 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Riyad forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. 12. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P2 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Riyad 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.