The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the preventive detention of a woman under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), holding that the authorities' failure to promptly inform her of her right to make a representation to the Central Government, followed by inordinate delays in transmitting and deciding her representations, violated the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5). [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 295]

Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed that there was no satisfactory explanation for the approximately 45-day delay in apprising the detenue of her right to approach the Central Government.

The Court further noted that her representation to the Central Government, submitted on December 24, 2025, remained pending until June 2, 2026, while the representation was itself forwarded to the Central Government only on March 3, 2026, after a delay of nearly three months.

"There is delay at every step i.e. informing about rights, forwarding of representations, furnishing of comments and decision of representations," the Court observed, holding that the delays of three months and five months amounted to a flagrant violation of Article 22(5) and denial of the detenue's fundamental right.

The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the detenue challenging her detention order dated November 1, 2025, passed by the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration.

The petitioner had earlier been detained under a previous detention order, which was set aside by the Advisory Board in July 2025. She was thereafter released.

Subsequently, FIR was registered against her and 21 others under Section 21 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh. The petitioner contended that the FIR was based on alleged secret information regarding narcotics, but no search was conducted, no contraband was recovered and no accused was arrested.

The fresh detention order was passed on November 1, 2025, approximately three months after registration of the FIR.

The petitioner contended that the fresh detention order substantially relied upon material which had already formed the basis of the earlier detention order that had been set aside, with the subsequent FIR being the principal new circumstance.

As per records, she was informed on November 3, 2025 of her right to make representations to the Detaining Authority, the Chief Secretary and the Advisory Board. She submitted representations to these authorities on November 26, 2025.

However, it was only on December 16, 2025 that she was informed of her right to make a representation to the Central Government. She submitted her representation to the Central Government on December 24, 2025.

The Advisory Board confirmed her detention on January 16, 2026.

The Court noted that the representation addressed to the Central Government was forwarded by the Chandigarh Administration on February 3, 2026 and was received by the PITNDPS Division of the Central Government only on March 16, 2026.

The Central Government thereafter called for para-wise comments and relevant material on March 18, 2026. The Chandigarh Administration furnished the requisite material on May 24, 2026, following which the representation was rejected on June 2, 2026.

Similarly, the representations submitted to the Chandigarh authorities on November 26, 2025 were rejected by the Home Secretary on February 25, 2026 and by the Chief Secretary on February 23, 2026.

Relying upon the Supreme Court's judgments in Alfiya A. v. State of Kerala, Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India, Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur, among others, the High Court reiterated that Article 22(5) casts a constitutional obligation upon the detaining authority to afford the detenue the earliest opportunity of making a representation and to inform her of the authorities to whom such representation may be made.

The Court noted that the right to make a representation to the Central Government is an independent constitutional safeguard and that failure to communicate the right renders the opportunity to make an effective representation incomplete.

The Court further emphasised that the obligation does not end with informing the detenue of her right.

"A representation, once made, is required to be considered and decided with utmost expedition and without avoidable or unexplained delay," the Court held.

Referring to the Supreme Court's observation in Jaseela Shaji that "each day's delay matters" in matters concerning personal liberty, the High Court held that the constitutional character of the right requires the authorities to act with the highest degree of diligence and promptitude.

The Court rejected the argument that mere delay would not invalidate detention where such delay is satisfactorily explained, observing that in the present case there was no cogent or legally acceptable explanation commensurate with the magnitude of the delays.

"Such belated communication necessarily curtailed the petitioner's opportunity to avail herself of an important constitutional safeguard at the earliest possible stage and cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity," it added.

The Court further held that the cumulative effect of the unexplained delay in informing the petitioner of her right to approach the Central Government, coupled with the subsequent delay in transmission and consideration of her representations, rendered her continued detention constitutionally unsustainable.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the detention order dated November 1, 2025 as well as the consequential continued detention.

Mr. Harshit Sethi, Advocate, Mr. Parvez Chaudhary, Advocate and Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tajeshwar Singh Sullar, Advocate, Central Govt. Counsel, UOI.

Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shashank Shekhar Suman, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2

Click here to read order