New Delhi, Mar 6 (UNI) The Supreme Court has ruled that preventive detention orders must reflect an independent application of mind by the detaining authority and cannot be issued based solely on a casual reference to material placed before it.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized that merely stating that the authority was “satisfied on examination of the proposals and supporting documents” is insufficient and does not meet constitutional or statutory requirements.
The Court quashed detention orders issued by the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, against two appellants, finding that the detaining authority had relied entirely on police proposals without framing independent grounds for detention.
The Court ruled that such an approach is legally unsustainable and held:
“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 case involved detention orders under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, which were challenged because they lacked clear reasoning and were issued mechanically.
The controversy began with a narcotics seizure on April 5, 2024, when three individuals—Nehkhoi Guite (driver), Hoinu @ Vahboi, and Chinneilhing Haokip @ Neopi—were apprehended at Khuzama village while travelling in a Mahindra TUV vehicle.
A search led to the discovery of 239 grams of heroin concealed in 20 soap cases inside the gear lever cover. A case was registered under Sections 22(b) and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
During interrogation, Chinneilhing Haokip @ Neopi implicated Adaliu Chawang, alleging prior heroin supply and financial transactions.
Subsequently, Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang were arrested on April 12, 2024, in Dimapur. Despite their judicial custody, the investigating officer recommended their preventive detention, citing concerns that they might resume illicit trafficking if released.
The Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Nagaland, forwarded this recommendation to the Special Secretary, Home Department, who issued the detention orders without providing independent reasons. Although the trial court granted them bail due to delays in filing the chargesheet, they remained incarcerated under the detention orders. Their challenge before the Gauhati High Court was unsuccessful, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed that the time of issuing the detention orders, the accused were already in judicial custody, with no evidence indicating that they had applied for bail. Despite this, the authorities presumed their release and future engagement in unlawful activities.
The Court reiterated that preventive detention orders for individuals already in custody must be based on concrete evidence showing a real likelihood of release and potential prejudicial activities.
“There must be cogent material before the officer passes 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 (a dogmatic and unproven statement) of the officer passing such an order,” the Court stated.
Additionally, the Court found significant procedural lapses. The detenus received copies of their detention orders in English, a language they did not understand. Authorities claimed that the contents were explained orally in Nagamese, but the Court held that oral explanations do not fulfil the requirements of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which mandates effective communication of detention grounds.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the detaining authority failed to frame distinct and self-contained grounds of detention, violating Section 6 of the Act. This failure to independently assess the case rendered the detention unlawful.
The Apex Court overturned the Gauhati High Court’s ruling and ordered the immediate release of the detenus, reinforcing the principle that preventive detention must be justified through a thorough and independent application of mind by the detaining authority.
