Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, and disposed of the matter while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court. The petition sought quashing of a preventive detention order and consequential relief of release from custody. The Bench noted that Delhi could assume territorial jurisdiction since the impugned detention order was issued in Delhi but held that it was not the suitable forum because the narcotics cases forming the basis for the detention are pending in West Bengal, where the concerned authority and records are located.

The petition was instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash a preventive detention order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, along with memoranda rejecting the petitioner’s representations. A writ of habeas corpus was also sought for production and release of the detenue lodged at Central Jail, Jaipur.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Directions To Enforce 25% RTE Quota In Private Unaided Schools, Directs States/UTs To Frame Rules

The detenue, a resident of West Bengal, was arrested in 2024 in connection with three criminal cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. During pendency of these cases, proceedings were initiated under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, culminating in the impugned detention order. The detenue was served with grounds of detention in Jaipur, and the State Advisory Board later confirmed the detention.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, contending that the detention order was rooted in offences committed in West Bengal and that the appropriate forum was either the High Court of Calcutta or the High Court of Rajasthan. The petitioner asserted that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi since the detention order and memoranda were issued there.

The Court first noted that “the objection raised is not to the existence of jurisdiction, but to the exercise thereof”, clarifying that the issue concerned discretionary exercise of jurisdiction rather than its absence. It recorded that while jurisdiction may exist where a part of the cause of action arises, such jurisdiction is not automatic in its exercise.

Referring to settled principles, the Court observed that “Article 226(2) does not take away the right of a High Court to dismiss a case on grounds of forum non-conveniens” and that the doctrine operates independently of territorial jurisdiction. The Court further stated that “merely because Article 226(2) allows jurisdiction to be conferred… this does not in itself mean that the presence of a seat shall automatically grant jurisdiction.”

The Bench recorded that even where a fraction of cause of action arises within a court’s jurisdiction, “the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit.” It was noted that courts retain discretion to decline jurisdiction where another forum is more appropriate.

Applying these principles, the Court observed that “both the petitioner and the State Authority… are situated in the State of West Bengal.” It further recorded that “the criminal cases forming the predicate offences… are pending within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta” and that relevant records were also located there. The Court noted the absence of any cogent justification for invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses IFS Probationers’ Pleas, Upholds Bar On Appearing In Civil Services Exam During Training

The Court recorded that “this Court refuses to exercise its discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction, applying the doctrine of forum conveniens. The present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court/forum. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.”

“Notwithstanding dismissal of the present writ petition by this Court, it will be open to the petitioner to raise his dispute and seek redressal of his grievances by instituting appropriate proceedings before any other Court/forum including before the jurisdictional High Court.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Kaustub Narendran, Advocate, along with Mr. Rohan Naik, Mr. Aayush Mitruka, Ms. Lisa Mishra, Mr. Vipulaaksh Moondra, Mr. Arudhra Rao, and Mr. Marmik Shah, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Central Government Standing Counsel, along with Mr. Kumar Kartikya, Advocate

Case Title: Mr Gautam Mondal v Union of India & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:794-DB                                                                                    

Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 3529/2025

Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary, Justice Manoj Jain