Jammu & Kashmir High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Alleged Drug Peddler: “Non-Supply of Legible Documents Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 22(5)”

Court’s Decision:

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court annulled the preventive detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The court found that the detaining authority failed to supply legible copies of the material relied upon for the detention. This violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution deprived the petitioner of his fundamental right to effectively represent against the detention order. Consequently, the court declared the detention illegal and directed the petitioner’s immediate release unless he was required in other cases.

Facts:

• Detention Order: The petitioner was detained by Order No. PITNDPS 13 of 2024, issued on February 1, 2024. The detention aimed to prevent the petitioner from continuing his alleged drug-peddling activities.
• Grounds for Detention: The detaining authority cited several FIRs, including FIRs for violations under the NDPS Act and IPC, alleging that the petitioner was a habitual offender. These FIRs included:
  • FIR No. 109/2019 (NDPS Act violations),
  • FIR No. 38/2023 (offenses under IPC),
  • FIR Nos. 60/2023 and 302/2023 (further NDPS violations).
• Material Relied Upon: The detention was based on a dossier provided by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu. It claimed the petitioner posed a threat to public safety by engaging in drug trafficking and contributing to drug addiction among youth.
• Challenge to Detention: The petitioner argued that the detention order was issued without proper consideration of his legal rights and failed to provide legible copies of the material relied upon.

Issues:

1. Legibility of Documents: Whether the non-supply of legible copies of the documents relied upon invalidated the detention order.
2. Preventive Detention Justification: Whether preventive detention was justified despite the availability of substantive criminal law to address the petitioner’s alleged activities.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Non-Application of Mind: The petitioner contended that the detention order was passed mechanically without showing how the alleged activities threatened the State’s security.
2. Illegible Documents: The material relied upon by the detaining authority was illegible and blurred, preventing the petitioner from effectively representing against the order.
3. Substantive Criminal Law Adequacy: The petitioner argued that criminal law adequately addressed his alleged actions, rendering preventive detention unnecessary.
4. Bail Misuse: While the detaining authority cited the petitioner’s alleged misuse of bail, no action to cancel bail was taken by the prosecution.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Public Threat: The petitioner’s repeated involvement in drug trafficking posed a serious threat to public health and order, warranting preventive detention.
2. Materials Provided: The respondents claimed that all relevant documents, including the grounds of detention and dossier, were provided to the petitioner in languages he understood (Urdu, Hindi, and Dogri).

Analysis of the Law:

1. Article 22(5) Violation: The court held that Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates the supply of clear and legible documents relied upon for detention. Non-compliance deprives the detenu of the fundamental right to make an effective representation.
2. Supreme Court Precedent: The court cited State of Manipur v. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan, where it was held that the supply of illegible or blurred documents invalidates a detention order because it violates procedural safeguards.
3. Substantive Law Sufficiency: Preventive detention should only be invoked when ordinary laws are inadequate to address criminal activities. The court noted that the detaining authority failed to justify why substantive criminal law could not prevent the petitioner’s alleged activities.

Precedent Analysis:

• In Buyamayum Abdul Hanan, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to representation is a fundamental right. If illegible documents are supplied, the detenu is deprived of this right, rendering the detention order invalid.
• The judgment clarified that procedural safeguards are non-negotiable in cases of preventive detention.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Non-Supply of Legible Documents:
   • The court observed that the respondents neither admitted nor denied the petitioner’s claim regarding illegible documents.
   • The failure to provide legible copies effectively prevented the petitioner from making a meaningful representation, violating Article 22(5).
2. Procedural Safeguards:
   • The court underscored that preventive detention, being an extraordinary measure, must adhere strictly to procedural safeguards to ensure its legality.
   • Non-compliance with these safeguards, as in this case, invalidated the detention order.

Conclusion:

The High Court quashed the detention order, directing the petitioner’s release unless he was required in connection with any other case. The court did not delve into other grounds of challenge, as the procedural lapse regarding illegible documents was sufficient to nullify the detention.

Implications:

1. Upholding Procedural Safeguards: This judgment reaffirms that procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) are essential in preventive detention cases. Any deviation renders the detention illegal.
2. Protection of Fundamental Rights: The decision highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual rights against potential misuse of preventive detention laws.
3. Precedent for Future Cases: This case serves as a reference for ensuring strict compliance with procedural requirements in preventive detention cases, particularly the supply of legible documents.

Also Read – Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail to Accused in 8.742 kg Charas Case: “Stringent NDPS Act Provisions and Societal Interest Outweigh Right to Liberty”