Delay In Initiating Proceedings Does Not Necessarily Severe Live Link Between Prejudicial Activity & Initiation Of Legal Action - Kerala HC
A Kerala High Court Bench of Justice PB Suresh Kumar and Justice CS Sudha observed, "No doubt, there has to be a live link between the prejudicial activities and the decision of the competent authority to initiate proceedings under Section 15 of the Act. If there is a long delay between the last prejudicial activity and the initiation of the proceedings, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, it can be presumed that the live link between the prejudicial activity and initiation of proceedings is snapped."
Advocate Vishnuprasad Nair appeared for the petitioner. Government Pleader KA Anas appeared for the respondent side.
In this case, there was a delay of 5 months and 18 days in initiating the proceedings after the last harmful activity took place. The competent authority explained that the delay occurred because it took time to gather the necessary documents related to the petitioner's harmful actions and other relevant materials.
On hearing the parties, the Court observed that it was necessary to examine whether the order of the authority reflected due application of mind as regards to the live link.
In that regard, the Court referred to the decision in Stalin C.V. v. State of Kerala and Others, and subsequently observed that "the question considered by this Court in the said case was whether the principle of delay snapping the live link with reference to the involvement of the person concerned in the last prejudicial activity, for passing the order of detention, would apply as such in the case of an order of restriction under Section 15 of the Act. Although this Court observed that an order of restriction cannot be passed under Section 15 of the Act if the act/acts which are complained of have completely lost their relevance by the passage of time, giving rise to a total absence of any nexus, it was held that an order of restriction under Section 15 is lighter in its impact on the personal liberty of the person concerned and that its effect is only in the nature of a condition attached to a bail order."
In light of the same, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, for the passage of time did not give rise to total absence of any nexus.
It was further said that "The conduct on the part of the petitioner in getting himself involved in another prejudicial activity immediately after serving the impugned order fortifies the subjective satisfaction rendered by the competent authority in this regard."
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Harikrishnan vs State of Kerala & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
