The Supreme Court has ruled that preventive detention orders must be based on an independent application of mind by the detaining authority and not merely rely on police recommendations. In a significant decision, the Court quashed the detention orders issued against two individuals under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, for lacking clear reasoning and being passed mechanically.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih held that a mere statement that the detaining authority was “satisfied on examination of the proposals and supporting documents” is constitutionally and statutorily insufficient. The Court observed:
“Such ‘satisfaction’ of the detaining authority necessarily has to be spelt out after application of mind by way of separate grounds of detention made by the detaining authority itself and cannot be by inference from a casual reference to the material placed before such detaining authority.”
Case Background
The case arose from a narcotics seizure on April 5, 2024, when three individuals were caught transporting 239 grams of heroin in a Mahindra TUV vehicle at Khuzama village. During interrogation, one of the accused implicated others, leading to the arrest of Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang on April 12, 2024.
Although both were already in judicial custody, the police recommended their preventive detention, arguing that they might continue illicit trafficking if released. The Special Secretary, Home Department, Nagaland, issued detention orders without framing independent grounds, solely relying on the police’s proposal.
SC: No Justification for Preventive Detention
The Supreme Court strongly criticized this approach, stating that preventive detention orders against persons already in custody must be backed by concrete evidence suggesting a real possibility of release and future prejudicial activities.
“There must be cogent material before the officer passing the detention order to infer that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, and such an inference must be drawn from the material on record and must not be the ipse dixit of the officer passing such an order.”
The Bench also pointed out serious procedural lapses. The detenus were served their detention orders in English, a language they did not understand, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. While authorities claimed the contents were explained orally in Nagamese, the Court ruled that oral explanations were insufficient for ensuring effective communication of detention grounds.
Detention Orders Set Aside
Finding that the detaining authority failed to frame independent grounds of detention as required under Section 6 of the Act, the Court declared the detention orders legally unsustainable. It set aside the Gauhati High Court’s order upholding the detention and directed the immediate release of the detenus.
Case: Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland – Available on LAWFYI.IO
