Supreme Court Quashes Preventive Detention Orders Issued Under PITNDPS Act, Orders Immediate Release of Detained Individuals
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court has set aside the preventive detention orders issued against two individuals under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), holding that the detention orders were passed without proper application of mind and in violation of constitutional safeguards. The court directed the immediate release of the detenus unless their incarceration was required in connection with any other case.
The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the judgment while hearing appeals against the dismissal of writ petitions by the Gauhati High Court. The petitions had challenged the preventive detention of Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang, who were detained under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act by the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, through orders dated May 30, 2024. The Supreme Court observed that the detention orders lacked substantive grounds justifying the necessity of preventive detention and that there was no material to suggest an imminent threat requiring such measures.
The case arose from the detention of Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang following their alleged involvement in narcotics-related offenses. The police had apprehended three individuals on April 5, 2024, in Khuzama village while they were traveling in a Mahindra TUV vehicle. Upon searching the vehicle, law enforcement authorities discovered 20 soap cases containing heroin concealed in the gear lever cover, with a total weight of 239 grams. Consequently, a suo motu FIR was registered on April 6, 2024, under Sections 22(b) and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Also Read: 'Instagram Friendship Led to Consensual Relationship’: SC Quashes Rape Case
During interrogation, one of the arrested individuals implicated Adaliu Chawang, stating that she had previously supplied heroin and received payments. This led to the arrest of Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang in Dimapur on April 12, 2024, following which they were remanded to custody. Subsequently, the investigating officer recommended their preventive detention, and these proposals were forwarded by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Nagaland, to the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, on May 14, 2024, and May 17, 2024, respectively. The Special Secretary issued detention orders on May 30, 2024, directing that both individuals be detained in the District Jail, Dimapur, for an initial period of three months.
Following their detention, both individuals submitted representations on June 12, 2024, seeking revocation of their detention orders. They contended that the detention orders had been served in a language they did not understand, violating their constitutional rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. They further argued that they were already in judicial custody at the time of the detention orders and that the orders failed to justify why their continued detention was necessary. Their representations were rejected by the Special Secretary on June 13, 2024, and subsequently affirmed by the Chief Secretary of Nagaland on June 18, 2024. The Advisory Board, Nagaland, after considering the case records and providing an opportunity of hearing, submitted a report on August 9, 2024, concluding that there was sufficient cause for their detention. Following this, the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, rejected their representations under a memorandum dated August 27, 2024, and the Government of Nagaland issued confirmation orders on September 2, 2024, extending their detention until December 2, 2024. The detention period was further extended until March 2, 2025.
The Supreme Court examined the legality of the detention orders and noted that at the time of their issuance, neither Ashraf Hussain Choudhary nor Adaliu Chawang had filed any application for bail. The court cited its previous decisions, including Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that preventive detention orders against individuals already in judicial custody must be based on cogent material demonstrating a real possibility of their release and likelihood of re-engaging in prejudicial activities. The court observed:
"There was no material before the detaining authority to infer that the detenus were likely to be released on bail. The orders of detention were passed mechanically without any specific finding that the detenus were seeking bail or that their release would result in prejudicial activities."
The court also took note of the language barrier faced by the detenus. It was admitted that neither of them was conversant with English, the language in which the detention orders and supporting documents were issued. The Supreme Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, which held that mere oral explanations of detention orders are insufficient and that detenus must be provided documents in a language they can understand. The court recorded:
"Expecting the detenus to recall oral explanations from voluminous documents over time and to effectively make representations against the detention orders is impractical. The communication of grounds in a language they do not understand is a violation of their constitutional rights under Article 22(5)."
Another issue noted by the court was the lack of independent application of mind by the detaining authority. The Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, issued the detention orders solely on the basis of the proposals forwarded by the Additional Director General of Police. The court pointed out that Section 6 of the PITNDPS Act requires that detention orders be made on separate and specific grounds, whereas in this case, the orders merely stated that the Special Secretary was "satisfied" based on the forwarded proposals. The court held that this did not meet the legal threshold for preventive detention under the Act.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Gauhati High Court erred in upholding the detention orders and failed to apply settled legal principles while reviewing their validity. It set aside the High Court’s judgment dated August 29, 2024, and allowed the appeals. The court directed that the detention orders issued on May 30, 2024, along with subsequent extensions, be quashed. The detenus were ordered to be released immediately unless their detention was required in connection with any other case.
Case Title: Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. The State of Nagaland and others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 321
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 4872-4873 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Augustine George Masih
[Read/Download order]
