JUDGMENT : Jobin Sebastian, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 detention order dated 07.10.2025 passed against the petitioner/detenu under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. The said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 10.12.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months with effect from the date of detention. 2. The records reveal that, on 21.08.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thirssur City, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2 (p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether, five cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order. 3. Out of the said cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.581/2025 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 238(b) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”). 4. We heard Sri. Shibin K. F., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order is passed 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. 6. In response, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the order of detention was passed after complying with all the necessary legal formalities and after proper application of mind. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing Ext.P1 detention order after the commission of the last prejudicial activity. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the order of detention was passed after complying with all the necessary legal formalities and after proper application of mind. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing Ext.P1 detention order after the commission of 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 and hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 7. While considering the contention of the learned counsel for 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 KAA(P) Act has a significant impact on the personal as well as fundamental rights of an individual. So such an order cannot 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 , [ (1989) 4 SCC 741 ] , 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 petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is No.581/2025 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 238(b) r/w 3(5) of BNS . The incident that led to the registration of the last prejudicial activity occurred on 12.05.2025, and he was arrested on 13.05.2025. Subsequently, he was granted bail on 28.07.2025. The records further reveal that the District Police Chief, Thirssur City, submitted the proposal to the competent authority for initiation of proceedings under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act on 21.08.2025. Later, Ext.P1 order was passed on 07.10.2025. Virtually, there is a delay of more than three months in submitting the proposal and more than four and a half months in passing the detention order after the commission of the last prejudicial activity. 10. While considering the contention of the petitioner, regarding the delay that occurred in submitting the proposal and in passing the order, it cannot be ignored that an order under Section 3 (1) of KAA(P)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. However, there exists no inflexible rule requiring that a detention order has to be passed within a specific time frame following the last prejudicial activity. 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. However, there exists no inflexible rule requiring that a detention order has to be passed within a specific time frame following the last prejudicial activity. However, when there is an undue delay in forwarding 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. 11. Keeping in mind the above, while coming to the facts in the present case, it can be seen that, as already stated, there is a delay of more than three months in submitting the proposal after the commission of the last prejudicial activity. The said delay cannot be justified by saying that the same was necessary for observing natural justice principles. The assertion that additional time was needed to gather the details of the crimes before forwarding the proposal lacks credibility. In the case at hand, only five cases formed the basis for proposing and issuing the detention order. The details of those cases were readily available and could have been obtained without delay, given the technological upgradation attained by the Law Enforcement Authority. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the delay in mooting the proposal is unreasonable and unjustifiable. If the District Police Chief was having bona fide apprehension regarding the repetition of anti-social activities by the detenu, definitely, he would have acted swiftly and with great alacrity in submitting the proposal at least after the release of the detenu on bail in the last case registered against him. Therefore, we are of the view that the delay in forwarding the proposal will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the impugned order. 12. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P1 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Sarath @ Chundan, 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, Kannur forthwith.