'Preventive Detention Not Sustainable Upon Mere Suspicion': P&H High Court Quashes Detention Under PIT-NDPS Act

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a preventive detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act), on several grounds including that unexplained and inordinate delay at multiple stages vitiated the detention.Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "Preventive detention would not be sustained upon a mere suspicion, administrative convenience or generalized apprehension. The constitutional guarantee under Articles 21 and 22 demands that the State demonstrate compelling necessity before depriving a person of liberty without trial. Where ordinary criminal law provides adequate remedies, the State cannot bypass judicial scrutiny and directly invoke preventive detention merely because the accused has secured bail or because prosecution under ordinary law may involve procedural rigours."The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for his release, challenging the detention order dated May 2, 2025, as well as the subsequent confirmation order dated August 14, 2025, whereby his detention was extended for a period of one year.As per the record, the petitioner was detained pursuant to an order passed under Section 3(1) of the PIT NDPS Act on the ground that his activities were prejudicial to preventing illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs. The detention was based on multiple FIRs registered against him under the NDPS Act, including cases where he had been granted bail, acquitted, or had already undergone sentence.The Court noted that although the proposal for detention was initiated on January 8, 2025, the detention order was passed only on May 2, 2025, followed by its execution on May 30, 2025. The Bench found that the delay of nearly four months in passing the detention order, along with further delay in its execution, remained unexplained.Delay In Passing And Executing Detention Order"This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the delay occasioned in passing and executing the detention order has snapped the “live and proximate link” between the alleged prejudicial activities and the necessity for preventive detention. The material relied upon by the Detaining Authority had, by passage of time and administrative inaction, lost the urgency required to sustain an order of preventive detention. Consequently, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority stands vitiated in law," the judge said.The Court observed that once such delay occurs without justification, the detention loses its preventive character and becomes punitive in nature, which is constitutionally impermissible.Justice Bhardwaj said "it deserves to be noticed that Article 22(5) embodies one of the most valuable constitutional safeguards available to a person preventively detained. The constitutional mandate requires that the detenue be communicated the grounds of detention “as soon as may be” and further be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention."The right of representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) is not an illusory or ritualistic right but a substantive and enforceable constitutional protection intended to ensure that the detenue is placed in a position to effectively challenge the legality, necessity and propriety of the detention order, it added.The bench highlighted that, it is an admitted position emerging from the record that while the Petitioner was furnished with the grounds of detention and certain relied- upon documents, the copy of the detention proposal itself was never supplied to him.Hence, the Court rejected the stand of the respondents that the proposal merely constitutes an inter-departmental communication between the sponsoring authority and the Detaining Authority and, therefore, does not fall within the category of relied- upon documents required to be supplied under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India."The detention proposal in the facts of the present case cannot be treated as a mere administrative formality or innocuous inter-departmental correspondence. Rather, it forms the very foundation upon which the preventive detention proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner. The proposal was not merely a forwarding communication; it contained the material particulars, allegations, antecedents and recommendations placed before the Detaining Authority for formation of subjective satisfaction," it added.Right To Make Constitutional Representation Cant Be Reduced To Hollow FormalityThe Court further observed that the constitutional right to make a representation cannot be reduced to a hollow formality by selectively supplying documents while withholding the very material which triggered and shaped the detention process. In the absence of the detention proposal, the Petitioner was effectively deprived of the opportunity to demonstrate before the Advisory Board and the competent authorities that the proposal itself...

'Preventive Detention Not Sustainable Upon Mere Suspicion': P&H High Court Quashes Detention Under PIT-NDPS Act

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

'Preventive Detention Not Sustainable Upon Mere Suspicion': P&H High Court Quashes Detention Under PIT-NDPS Act

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers