Preventive Detention Orders Passed Without Application Of Mind 'Deplorable': Allahabad High Court Urges Union Govt To Redress Situation
The Allahabad High Court has termed as 'deplorable' the passing of preventive detention orders without application of mind and without reference to the "grounds of detention". It, therefore, urged the Union Government to redress the situation at the earliest in the larger interest of the criminal justice delivery system.
A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi made the observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by one Gurmel Singh.
The Court quashed his preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act). The petitioner was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
The impugned detention order was passed on January 2, 2026, when the detenue was already in judicial custody in one NDPS case.
The Court noted that although the grounds of detention merely stated that he was attempting to secure bail, the detaining authority failed to record any cogent material or subjective satisfaction demonstrating an imminent/real possibility of the Detenu's release on bail, or why preventive detention was imperative while he was already in judicial custody.
Referring to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs. State of Nagaland, as well as the 1990 decision in Kamarunnisa v. Union of India, the 2011 decision in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, and the 2003 decision in Union of India vs. Paul Manickam, the High Court reiterated thus:
"The detaining authority must be reasonably satisfied on the basis of cogent material, that there is likelihood of detenue of indulging in such activities on being released from jail. The "reasons to believe" should be based on reliable material and real possibility of detenue misusing his liberty in case of release from jail".
The bench noted that in the present case, the impugned orders were passed without application of mind and without reference to any of the 'grounds of detention' of the petitioner.
"Such a state of affairs is deplorable and needs to be redressed at the earliest by the Union Government in the larger interest of the criminal justice delivery system", it noted.
The Court further observed that the State Government had paid "mere lip service" to the mandatory requirements of law by mechanically stating that detention was necessary to prevent the petitioner from engaging in illicit trafficking.
It emphasized that such 'satisfaction' was required to have been spelt out after application of mind by reference to separate grounds of detention made by the detaining authority, which has not been done.
The order impugned does not show any application of mind, and no "grounds of detention" have been recorded therein, the bench noted.
The Bench also found the unexplained delay of nearly 5.5 months between the last alleged incident and the detention order to be fatal.
It observed that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure intended to prevent immediate and imminent illicit activity, "not a penal mechanism".
According to the Court, such an unexplained delay completely snapped the "live link" between the alleged prejudicial activity and the necessity for passing a preventive detention order.
It further stated that the Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, had acted as a "mere rubber stamp" by mechanically reproducing the proposal submitted by the sponsoring authority without recording independent subjective satisfaction or examining whether the ordinary penal law under the NDPS Act was insufficient to deal with the situation.
The Court reiterated that "reasons to believe" must rest on reliable material showing a real likelihood of the detenue re-indulging in illicit trafficking upon release.
The Bench also noted that the Screening Committee and the Advisory Board had also acted mechanically without recording the independent subjective satisfaction mandated by law.
It further found non-compliance with Section 3(2) of the PIT NDPS Act, noting that while the detention order was passed on January 2, 2026, the Central Government admittedly received the statutory report only on January 14, beyond the prescribed 10-day period.
Since compliance with Section 3(2) is mandatory, the Court held that the breach vitiated the detention order.
Holding that the impugned detention order could not be sustained in law, the High Court quashed the order and directed the immediate release of the petitioner.
Advocate Sunil Vashisth, appeared for the petitioner.
AGA-I GN Kanaujiya, appeared for the State.
Deputy Solicitor General of India SK Pal, assisted by Advocate Prem Shankar Prasad, appeared for Union of India
Case Title - Gurmel Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 535
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 535