New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the preventive detention orders issued against two individuals accused in a drugs case, stating that such orders must demonstrate an independent application of mind by the detaining authority. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih ruled that merely stating satisfaction based on proposals and supporting documents was inadequate and did not fulfill constitutional or statutory requirements.
“Preventive detention is a draconian measure whereby a person who has not been tried and convicted under a penal law can be detained and confined for a determinate period of time so as to curtail that person’s anticipated criminal activities,” the bench observed while delivering its judgment.
The court overturned the Gauhati High Court’s decision that had upheld the detention orders against Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and his wife, Adaliu Chawang. They were detained under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act of 1988. The Supreme Court found fault with what it termed “cryptic orders” issued by the detaining authority without proper scrutiny of the case.
The bench acknowledged that preventive detention is sanctioned under Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution but emphasized that stringent norms must be followed when executing such orders. “The Act of 1988 is one such law which was promulgated by Parliament authorising preventive detention so as to curb illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,” the court stated.
Reiterating the importance of procedural safeguards, the court noted that depriving a person of their liberty without trial or conviction necessitates strict adherence to constitutional and statutory guidelines. “We hold that the Gauhati High Court erred in the application of settled legal norms while testing the validity of the impugned detention orders. The common judgement dated August 29, 2024, passed by the Gauhati High Court dismissing the two writ petitions is accordingly set aside and the appeals are allowed,” the bench ruled.
The Supreme Court quashed the detention orders issued on May 30, 2024, by the special secretary of the Nagaland government’s home department, which had been subsequently extended. “The detenus, Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang, shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their continued incarceration is warranted in connection with any other case,” the court ordered.
The bench further highlighted that the investigating officer had not provided any details about the detenus seeking bail when pressing for their preventive detention. The duo had been arrested on April 12, 2024, and later granted default bail on November 28, 2024, after the prosecution failed to act within the stipulated time.
“Therefore, the edicts of this court would squarely apply as there was no material for the detaining authority to have formed an opinion that there was a likelihood of either Choudhary or Chawang being released on bail,” the bench held. The court also noted procedural lapses, pointing out that the detenus were not informed of the grounds for their detention in a language they understood. Additionally, it found that the detaining authority had not formulated separate grounds for detention but had merely endorsed the proposals forwarded by the additional director general of police (Administration) of Nagaland.
“The cryptic orders of detention passed by her on May 30, 2024, merely recorded that she was satisfied, on careful examination of such proposals and other supporting documents, that sufficient grounds were made out for the detention of Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang. This is not in keeping with the statutory scheme, inasmuch as Section 6 of the Act of 1988 specifically refers to the order of detention ‘being made’ on separate grounds,” the court observed.
Under the NDPS Act, the detaining authority must be convinced that a person needs to be detained to prevent illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The bench held that such satisfaction must be explicitly recorded following an independent application of mind and cannot be inferred from a cursory reference to the material placed before the authority.
“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 or a bald recital to the effect that the detaining authority was satisfied on examination of the proposals and supporting documents that the detention of the individuals concerned was necessary,” the bench ruled.
The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the necessity for detaining authorities to adhere to procedural safeguards and ensure that preventive detention orders are based on independent reasoning rather than mere endorsement of law enforcement recommendations.