JUDGMENT : Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. 1. Under challenge in this Writ Petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is Ext.P1 order of detention dated 28.12.2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Thrissur, the 2nd respondent herein. 2. Brief facts: The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. A perusal of Ext.P1 detention order would reveal that on account of the involvement of the detenu in seven crimes registered within the territorial limits of Thrissur District, the detenu was classified as a ‘known rowdy’ as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter stated as ‘KAA(P) Act ’ for brevity) and an order of detention was issued on 30.03.2024. The said order was revoked on 03.06.2024 by the Government on the strength of the opinion of the Advisory Board. After the release of the detenu, he got involved in two crimes, i.e., Crime No. 513 of 2024 of the Peechi Police Station and Crime No. 802 of 2024 of the very same Police Station. The last prejudicial act was committed by the detenu on 18.09.2024. On the premise that the detenu was continuing as a “Known Rowdy”, a Report was submitted on 06.12.2024 by the 3rd respondent, District Police Chief, seeking initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act. At the time of submission of the report, the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 802 of 2024. After arriving at the requisite satisfaction, the detention order was issued on 28.12.2024, and the same was executed on 31.12.2024. On 09.01.2025, the Government granted approval, and the matter was referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion on 17.01.2024. The report of the Advisory Board was received on 13.02.2025, wherein it is mentioned that there was sufficient cause for the continued detention of the detenu. On receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, the detention order was confirmed by the Government by order dated 17.02.2025. 3. Sri. Sarath Babu Kottakkal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised the following contentions before us: a) The detention order was passed by the detaining authority without arriving at the requisite satisfaction. b) An earlier detention order was issued against the detenu and the same was revoked by the Government based on the opinion of the Advisory Board. 3. Sri. Sarath Babu Kottakkal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised the following contentions before us: a) The detention order was passed by the detaining authority without arriving at the requisite satisfaction. b) An earlier detention order was issued against the detenu and the same was revoked by the Government based on the opinion of the Advisory Board. A bare perusal of the impugned detention order reveals no reference whatsoever to the fact that the previous detention order was revoked on the strength of the Advisory Board’s opinion, nor does it disclose that the procedural errors or omissions due to which the earlier order was revoked were rectified in the procedure followed with regard to the subsequent detention order. c) Placing reliance on Section 13(2)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act, it was contended that the procedural lapses or legal infirmities that led to the revocation of the earlier detention order were required to be cured in the process culminating in the subsequent order. For such rectification to be meaningfully undertaken, it was imperative that the detaining authority was made aware of the specific reasons which weighed with the Advisory Board in recommending revocation. d) Though Section 10(3) of the KAA(P) Act provides that the report of the Advisory Board, except for that part which records its opinion, shall be confidential, the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness require that the non-confidential portions of the earlier report must be made available both to the detaining authority and to the sponsoring authority. This is essential to enable a meaningful application of mind as to whether the issuance of a fresh detention order under Section 13(2) of the KAA(P) Act is legally sustainable and factually justified. e) The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Devika v. State of Kerala , [2022 (5) KLT OnLine 1220] , wherein it was held that even if the report of the Advisory Board except the opinion part is to be kept confidential, the conclusions and the reasons that favoured the detenu must be disclosed and considered. According to the learned counsel, this interpretation strikes a necessary balance between confidentiality and the constitutional mandate against unlawful detention. f) The learned counsel also submitted that the order of detention is liable to be set aside on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay. According to the learned counsel, this interpretation strikes a necessary balance between confidentiality and the constitutional mandate against unlawful detention. f) The learned counsel also submitted that the order of detention is liable to be set aside on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay. It was pointed out that the last prejudicial activity allegedly committed by the detenu occurred on 18.09.2024, while the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 28.12.2024, resulting in a delay of over two months and thirteen days. According to the learned counsel, such a prolonged delay is fatal to the order, as it snaps the "live and proximate link" between the alleged prejudicial act and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, thereby rendering the detention legally unsustainable. 4. Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the observations made by this Court in Devika (supra) are inconsistent with the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly in A.K. Roy v. Union of India and Another , [ (1982) 1 SCC 271 ] , wherein it was held that the proceedings of the Advisory Board except in that part of the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall be confidential and therefore, cannot be thrown open to the public. In order to persuade us to conclude that the Division Bench in Devika (supra), had referred to the confidential part, the learned Public Prosecutor has placed before us the report of the Advisory Board in Devika (supra). He has also invited our attention to paragraph No. 10 of the judgment wherein the confidential portion containing the reasoning of the Advisory Board was extracted. He has also invited our attention to paragraph No. 10 of the judgment wherein the confidential portion containing the reasoning of the Advisory Board was extracted. The learned Public Prosecutor would also point out that the observation in paragraph No. 51 of Devika (supra) that “if the State Government has any considered view that the Advisory Board’s report, in its entirety, cannot be given, as it is confidential, then at least, non-confidential part of the opinion of the Advisory Board in favour of the detenu, more particularly, not only the conclusion therein but also the specific reasonings which led to the conclusions, should be made available by the State Government to both the detaining authority and the sponsoring authority in order to enable such authorities to consider as to whether a fresh detention order, in terms of Section 13(2) is warranted, if due to subsequent events” is against the provisions of the Statute and the repeated pronouncements of the Apex Court. It is further submitted that a coequal bench of this Court in Hashitha P.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , [2025:KER:483] , had occasion to consider similar contentions and had held that in the light of Section 10(3) of the KAA(P) Act which provides that the opinion of the Advisory Board shall be confidential, the detenu is not entitled to be furnished a copy of the opinion given by the Advisory Board. It is further submitted that the revocation order passed by the Government in respect of the earlier detention order was served on the detenu and in the said order, it has been unequivocally stated that it is based on the opinion of the Advisory Board that such an order has been passed under Section 10(4) of the KAA(P) Act. 5. Insofar as the delay of 2 months and 13 days in passing the order is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenu had been in judicial custody in Crime No. 802 of 2024 since 18.09.2024 and continued to remain in custody even after the order of detention was passed. It is contended that the detaining authority was required to assess the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail before issuing the detention order. It is contended that the detaining authority was required to assess the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail before issuing the detention order. In such circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor urged that the ‘live and proximate link between the prejudicial activities and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority remains intact and has not been snapped. In support of his submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Rahila Nazeer v. State of Kerala , [ 2016 (3) KHC 189 ] as well as in Mobitha M.M v. State of Kerala , [2025:KER:25791] 6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. 7. The first contention advanced by the learned counsel is with regard to the non-supply of the previous opinion of the Advisory Board which led to the revocation of the previous detention order. We find that the said contention has been raised relying on the observations in Devika (supra). In Devika (supra), this Court had occasion to hold that the grounds and reasons which weighed with the Advisory Board to recommend for the revocation of the previous order would be highly relevant and crucial to determine whether a subsequent revocation order has to be issued. As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court in Devika (supra) has extracted certain parts of the confidential portion and the reasonings given by the Advisory Board in paragraph No. 10 of the judgment. In paragraph No. 42 it was observed that at least the aspects relating to the reasons and grounds made by the Advisory Board and which is binding on the Government should have been duly taken note of by the detaining authority before deciding as to whether subjective satisfaction can be formed. The question is whether such a course could have been adopted in view of the settled pronouncements of the Apex Court and the provisions of the relevant statute. 8. Section 10 of the KAA(P) Act reads as under: 10. The question is whether such a course could have been adopted in view of the settled pronouncements of the Apex Court and the provisions of the relevant statute. 8. Section 10 of the KAA(P) Act reads as under: 10. Procedure of Advisory Board and further action.- (1) The Advisory Board to which a reference is made under the above section shall after considering the reference and the materials placed before it and after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the Government or from any person called for the purpose through the Government, or from the person concerned and if, in any particular case, it considers necessary so to do or if the person concerned desires to be heard in person, after hearing him in person, prepare its report specifying in a separate paragraph thereof its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned and submit the same within nine weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned; (2) When there is difference of opinion among the members forming the Advisory Board the opinion of the majority of such members shall be deemed to be the opinion of the Board. The absence of a member shall not invalidate the decision of the Board. (3) A person against whom an order of detention has been made under this Act shall not be entitled to appear by any legal practitioner in any matter connected with the reference to the Advisory Board, and the proceedings of the Advisory Board and its report, excepting that the part of the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall be confidential: Provided that the Board has power to permit legal practitioners in the cases deemed fit. (4) In every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith. 9. 9. Section 10 of the KAA(P) Act provides for the procedure to be followed by the Advisory Board. In every case where a detention order has been made, the Government is required to place the matter before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention of the person. Under Section 10, the Advisory Board to which the reference is made shall consider the materials and call for further information from the Government or the person concerned, and if so required after hearing the person concerned, prepare a report specifying in a separate paragraph thereof its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned and submit the same within 9 weeks from the date of detention. This is to comply with the mandate under Article 22(4) of the Constitution which says that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an Advisory Board has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention. Section 10(3) of the KAA(P) Act says that a person against whom an order of detention has been made under the Act shall not be entitled to appear by any legal practitioner in any matter connected with reference to the Advisory Board and the proceedings of the Advisory Board, and its report, excepting that part of the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall be confidential. Section 10(4) says that where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government may confirm the detention order and continue with the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit. In every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith. 10. A reading of Section 10 (1) of the KAA(P) Act would reveal that the report of the Advisory Board has to be in two parts. The first part is to contain the assessment made by the Advisory Board in the form of a report which is completely confidential. 10. A reading of Section 10 (1) of the KAA(P) Act would reveal that the report of the Advisory Board has to be in two parts. The first part is to contain the assessment made by the Advisory Board in the form of a report which is completely confidential. The second part contains the result of such an assessment in the form of an opinion. It is this second part of opinion alone which is not confidential. Section 10(4) of the KAA(P) Act obliges the Government to revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith in case the Advisory Board has reported that there was, in its opinion, no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned. However, if the opinion is otherwise and the Advisory Board has found that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the person, the appropriate government 'may confirm' the detention order and continue the detention. The choice is available to the appropriate government only in the latter of these two eventualities. Therefore, in case the opinion is to the effect that there was no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the appropriate government has to revoke the detention order and cause the person concerned to be released forthwith. (see also Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Nisar Pallathukadavil Aliyar and Ors ., 2019 INSC 941) 11. In Akshoy Konai v. State of West Bengal , [ (1973) 1 SCC 297 ] a contention was taken on behalf of the detenu that the decision of the dvisory Board was never communicated to him. The further submission was that the opinion of the Advisory Board should have been communicated to the detenu so as to enable him to question the legality of said opinion. These submissions were rejected by a Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court by observing as under: 4. The first objection against the Petitioner's detention raised by Shri B. Dutta, the learned Counsel appearing as amicus curiae in support of the writ petition, is that though the Petitioner had been heard in person by the Advisory Board the decision of the Board was never communicated to him. This omission, according to the counsel, invalidates the Petitioner's detention as he was not able to take any step to have this opinion scrutinised by any judicial tribunal. This omission, according to the counsel, invalidates the Petitioner's detention as he was not able to take any step to have this opinion scrutinised by any judicial tribunal. This submission is, in our opinion, difficult to accept. Under Section 11 of the Act the Advisory Board is required only to submit its report to the appropriate Government. There is no obligation imposed by the Act on the Board to communicate its decision to the detenu. The mere fact that Under Section 11 the Board hears the person affected by the detention order in case he desires to be so heard, would not for that reason alone impose on the Board a legal obligation to communicate its decision to the detenu. Our attention has not been drawn to any provision of law or to any principle which would imply any such obligation. In any event omission on the part of the Advisory Board to do so cannot invalidate the Petitioner's detention. 5. The submission that the Advisory Board should have communicated its opinion to the Petitioner so as to enable him to question its legality is also misconceived. In the first instance the Advisory Board constituted Under Section 9 of the Act, as its name connotes, is only required to function in an advisory capacity. Its opinion which is merely an advice is binding on the appropriate Government only if according to it there is no sufficient cause for the detention in question: in that eventuality the detenu cannot possibly have any grievance. When the Board reports that there is sufficient cause for the detention in question the appropriate Government is not bound under the law to confirm the order of detention. It may or may not do so. The advisory opinion of the Board is merely intended to assist the appropriate Government in determining the question of confirming the detention order and continuing the detention. It is binding on the appropriate Government only when it favours the detenu and not when it goes against him. Such advisory opinion can scarcely be an appropriate subject-matter of review or scrutiny by the judicial courts or tribunals. Secondly the proceedings of the Board and its report are expressly declared by Section 11(4) of the Act to be confidential except that part of the report in which its opinion is specified. Such advisory opinion can scarcely be an appropriate subject-matter of review or scrutiny by the judicial courts or tribunals. Secondly the proceedings of the Board and its report are expressly declared by Section 11(4) of the Act to be confidential except that part of the report in which its opinion is specified. This provision clearly indicates that the advisory opinion is never intended to be open to challenge on the merits before any tribunal. So far as the final opinion of the Board is concerned the communication of the confirmation of the detention order by the State Government clearly informed the Petitioner that the opinion of the Board was against him. 12. In A.K. Roy (supra), the unfairness and unreasonableness of the procedure before the Advisory Board was one of the contentions taken by the learned counsel. It was argued before the Apex Court that the Advisory Board must give reasons in support of its opinion which must be furnished to the detenu and that the proceedings of the Advisory Board must be open to the public. It was observed that the duty and function of the Advisory Board are to determine whether there was sufficient cause for detention of the person concerned on the date on which the order of detention was passed and whether or not there is sufficient cause for detention of that person on the date of the report. It was observed in Para 98 as under: 98. ... ...In proceedings before the Advisory Board, the question for consideration of the Board is not whether the detenu is guilty of any charge but whether there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned. The detention, it must be remembered, is based not on facts proved either by applying the test of preponderance of probabilities or of reasonable doubt. The detention is based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that it is necessary to detain a particular person in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain stated objects. The proceeding of the Advisory Board has therefore to be structured differently from the proceeding of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals, before which there is a lis to adjudicate upon. 13. The proceeding of the Advisory Board has therefore to be structured differently from the proceeding of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals, before which there is a lis to adjudicate upon. 13. In Nisar Pallathukadavil Aliyar and Ors (supra), while elucidating on the nature and validity of the opinion, it was observed as under: According to the aforesaid decisions the nature of opinion given by the Advisory Board is neither judicial nor quasi judicial; that it would be erroneous and unsafe to treat the opinion expressed by the Advisory Board as amounting to a judgment of a criminal court; that the Advisory Board does not try the question about the propriety or validity of the citizen's detention as a court of law would, but, its function is limited. As stated in Akshoy Konai, the opinion is merely intended to assist the government and it is binding on the appropriate government only if it favours the detenu and not when it goes against him. It was laid down in said decision that the opinion of the Advisory Board cannot be subject matter of review or scrutiny by the judicial courts/tribunals. The element of confidentiality was also taken note of and it was observed that the Advisory Board opinion is never intended to be open to challenge on the merits before any tribunal. 19. ………………………The report of the Advisory Board, excepting its opinion, is strictly confidential and the nature of the power so exercised by the Advisory Board in giving its report and the opinion, has already been pronounced upon by this Court in the cases referred to above viz. Dharam Singh Rathi AIR 1958 SC 152 Akshoy Konai (1973) 1 SCC 297 , A.K. Roy (1982) 1 SCC 271 and Calcutta Dock Labour Board (1965) 3 SCR 453 . 14. In view of the discussion above, we hold that the observations in paragraphs 42 and 48 of Devika (supra) have been made without taking note of the law laid down in the binding precedents of the Apex Court and is therefore per incuriam. As held by the Apex Court, the first part of the report prepared by the Advisory Board under Section 10(1) of the Act shall only contain the assessment made by the Advisory Board in the form of a report. This part of the report is completely confidential. As held by the Apex Court, the first part of the report prepared by the Advisory Board under Section 10(1) of the Act shall only contain the assessment made by the Advisory Board in the form of a report. This part of the report is completely confidential. The second part shall contain the result of such assessment in the form of an opinion and shall only contain whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned. The Advisory Board’s opinion is merely advisory in nature and is meant for the Government. The opinion of the Advisory Board cannot be subject matter of review or scrutiny by the judicial courts/tribunals. The element of confidentiality is also to be maintained. The Advisory Board’s opinion is not intended to be open to challenge on the merits before any Tribunal. The opinion of the Board is merely an advice which is binding on the Government only if, according to it, there is no sufficient cause for the detention in question: in that eventuality, the detenu cannot possibly have any grievance. The detenu is not entitled to a copy of the report of the advisory board let alone the reasons which persuaded the Board to recommend for the revocation. While passing the subsequent detention order, the details of the previous detention orders are to be mentioned. If the same has been revoked by the Government, the said fact is also to be stated. Procedural errors and omissions which led to the revocation are to be rectified if a subsequent order is required to be issued. A copy of the revocation order passed by the Government of the previous detention order is also required to be supplied. In that view of the matter, we reject the contention of the learned counsel that the conclusions and the reasons of the Advisory Board in respect of the earlier detention order ought to be made available to the sponsoring authority as well as the detaining authority. 15. Insofar as the delay of 2 months and 13 days in passing the order of detention is concerned, we find that the detenu was arrested in connection with Crime No. 802 of 24 on 18.9.2024. When the detention order was passed, the detenu was in judicial custody. 15. Insofar as the delay of 2 months and 13 days in passing the order of detention is concerned, we find that the detenu was arrested in connection with Crime No. 802 of 24 on 18.9.2024. When the detention order was passed, the detenu was in judicial custody. From the order of detention, we find that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in custody and has also received information that he was likely to be released on bail. His criminal antecedents and his predilection to get himself involved in grave crimes, if released on bail, were also taken note of. 16. Where detention orders are passed in relation to persons who are already in jail, the detaining authorities are required to apply their mind and show their awareness in this regard on the grounds of detention, and the chances of release of such persons on bail. In Kamarunnissa v. Union Of India And Another , [1991 AIR SC 1640] , the Apex Court had observed that even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can be validly passed: (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has a reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his release on bail, and (b) that on being released, he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities and (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If an order is passed after recording satisfaction in that regard, the order would be valid. In the case at hand, the order of detention shows an awareness of custody and/or a possibility of release on bail. As the statutory requirements are to be satisfied in its letter and spirit, some delay is inevitable. As the detention order was passed on getting inputs as to his impending release on bail, it cannot be said that there has been any delay in passing the order. In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. This Writ Petition is dismissed.