Jammu & Kashmir High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Petitioner Under PITNDPS Act, 1988, Citing Procedural Deficiencies and Incomplete Records, Emphasizing the Need for Procedural Compliance in Preventive Detention

Court’s Decision

The High Court quashed the preventive detention order against the petitioner, holding that it was based on procedural irregularities and incomplete application of mind. The court stated that while the objective of curbing illicit trafficking in narcotics is valid, the process followed must adhere strictly to the law. The court emphasized that any preventive detention order affecting personal liberty must be justified with thorough and updated facts.

Key observation:

• “The preventive detention of the petitioner is vitiated… the manner and process in which the attainment of the end objective was applied was and is deficient on all counts.”

The court ordered the petitioner’s release from custody.

Facts

1. Background of Detention:
   • The petitioner was detained under an order issued on February 18, 2024, by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, under Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act, 1988.
   • The detention was based on a dossier by the SSP, Jammu, citing the petitioner’s repeated involvement in narcotic trafficking and illegal liquor sales.
   • The dossier referred to several FIRs, including:
     • FIR No. 72/2010 to FIR No. 158/2017 under the Excise Act.
     • FIR Nos. 155/2021 and 05/2024 under the NDPS Act.
     • FIR No. 186/2021 under the Wildlife Protection Act.
2. Allegations Against the Petitioner:
   • The petitioner allegedly created a sense of insecurity and fear in her locality by promoting drug abuse.
   • Despite legal actions, including multiple FIRs and arrests, she continued such activities due to her ability to secure bail.
3. Procedural Timeline:
   • The detention order was executed on February 22, 2024, and reported to the Advisory Board, which approved it on March 1, 2024.
   • The government issued a confirmation order on March 22, 2024.
   • The petitioner challenged the detention through a writ petition on April 3, 2024.

Issues

1. Was the preventive detention order under the PITNDPS Act valid and justified?
2. Did the respondents adhere to procedural requirements for preventive detention?

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The FIRs cited in the dossier were outdated and irrelevant for justifying preventive detention.
• The detention primarily relied on FIR No. 05/2024, ignoring the broader factual matrix.
• Preventive detention was misused to override her right to bail granted by criminal courts.
• The detention violated procedural safeguards, undermining Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The petitioner’s criminal antecedents, documented through multiple FIRs, justified her preventive detention.
• She was a habitual offender, and preventive detention was the only remaining remedy to prevent her from engaging in further illegal activities.
• The decision was taken after due application of mind by the Divisional Commissioner and was backed by the Advisory Board’s approval.

Analysis of the Law

1. Importance of Procedural Safeguards:
   • Preventive detention laws like the PITNDPS Act must comply with strict procedural requirements to ensure fairness.
   • The sponsoring authority (SSP, Jammu) failed to provide updated information about the status of the criminal cases linked to the FIRs cited in the dossier.
2. Incomplete Record-Keeping:
   • The dossier listed FIRs from 2010 to 2024 but did not detail the status of these cases (e.g., pending or resolved).
   • The absence of updated information hindered a proper assessment of the petitioner’s criminal history.
3. Violation of Constitutional Rights:
   • The preventive detention violated Article 21 as it lacked proper justification and relied on incomplete facts.
4. Legal Precedents:
   • Though no specific judgments were cited, the court reiterated the principle that personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be curtailed without following due process.

Precedent Analysis

The judgment aligns with established legal principles requiring strict adherence to procedural fairness in cases of preventive detention. Although the court did not cite specific cases, its reasoning reflects a commitment to protecting constitutional rights and ensuring procedural compliance.

Court’s Reasoning

• The detention order was based on an incomplete and outdated dossier, rendering the Divisional Commissioner’s decision invalid.
• The lack of updated details regarding the status of FIRs and trials showed insufficient application of mind.
• The court remarked, “The application of mind… in formulating the grounds of detention and passing the impugned order of detention… is nothing but an exercise of jurisdiction on fractured state of facts to impinge the fundamental right of the petitioner.”

Conclusion

The court declared the detention order illegal and ordered the petitioner’s immediate release. It further directed the jail authorities to ensure compliance without delay.

Implications

1. Upholding Procedural Fairness:
   • The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases.
   • Authorities must ensure that dossiers and records are comprehensive and up to date.
2. Reinforcement of Constitutional Rights:
   • The judgment reaffirms the principle that personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be compromised without strict compliance with due process.
3. Accountability for Preventive Detention:
   • It highlights the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing and correcting lapses in preventive detention cases.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Allows Partial Relief in Property Dispute: “Consent Terms Upheld While Third-Party Purchaser Zenith Impleaded for Adjudication of Possession Claims Over Disputed Flats”