'Passing Of Order In Delhi Not Enough To Invoke Writ Jurisdiction': Delhi High Court Refuses To Hear Challenge Against Preventive Detention

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging preventive detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS), holding that although it possessed territorial jurisdiction, it was not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the dispute.A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain observed that though the impugned preventive detention order was passed in Delhi, the criminal cases forming the predicate offences were pending in West Bengal.Thus citing the doctrine of forum conveniens, it said,“...since the impugned order was passed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court does possess the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. However, the objection raised is not to the existence of jurisdiction, but to the exercise thereof, contending that whether applying the doctrine of forum conveniens, this Court ought to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in hearing the present petition or refuse it.”The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a detenu through his wife, seeking quashing of the detention order dated March 20, 2025.The Central government however raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, contending that the predicate offences against the detenu were registered in West Bengal, the proposal for detention had originated from authorities there, and all relevant records were also located there. It was argued that merely because the detention order and rejection of detenu's representations were issued in Delhi, the Delhi High Court ought not to exercise jurisdiction, particularly in view of the doctrine of forum conveniens.The Petitioner on the other hand argued that since part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi, the writ petition was maintainable.After considering the submissions, the Court held that while the Delhi High Court did have territorial jurisdiction, the relevant records pertaining to the petitioner, his alleged criminal antecedents, and the said cases are located in West Bengal.“Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to disclose any cogent reason justifying invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court,” it said.Relying on various precedents, the Court reiterated that Article 226(2) is an enabling provision and does not compel a High Court to entertain every petition merely because a small or incidental part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial limits.As such, the Court refused to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction and disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.Appearance: Mr. Kaustub Narendran with Mr. Rohan Naik, Mr. Aayush Mitruka, Ms. Lisa Mishra, Mr. Vipulaaksh Moondra, Mr. Arudhra Rao and Mr. Marmik Shah, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Abhishek Gupta, CGSC for UOI with Mr. Kumar Kartikya, Advocates for respondent Nos.1 and 2.Case title: Mr Gautam Mondal Through His Wife Mrs Ashima Mukherjee Mondal v. Union Of India Through Its Standing Counsel & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 75Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 3529/2025Click here to read order

'Passing Of Order In Delhi Not Enough To Invoke Writ Jurisdiction': Delhi High Court Refuses To Hear Challenge Against Preventive Detention

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags