The Supreme Court recently ruled that preventive detention orders must demonstrate an independent application of mind by the detaining authority and cannot rely merely on a cursory reference to the material presented.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih held that simply stating the authority was "satisfied on examination of the proposals and supporting documents" is inadequate and fails to meet constitutional or statutory requirements.
The Court set aside the detention orders issued against two appellants by the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland. It noted that the detaining authority had not formulated independent grounds for detention but had merely adopted the proposals forwarded by the police. Finding this approach legally unsustainable, the Court remarked,
“Such ‘satisfaction’ of the detaining authority necessarily has to be spelled 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 ruling was delivered in a case where detention orders under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, were challenged for lacking clear reasoning and being issued in a mechanical manner.
The case stemmed from 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 traveling in a Mahindra TUV vehicle. A search revealed 239 grams of heroin hidden in 20 soap cases inside the gear lever cover. Consequently, 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 that she had previously supplied heroin and received payments.
Subsequently, Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang were arrested on April 12, 2024, in Dimapur and remanded to custody. Despite their detention, the investigating officer recommended preventive detention, arguing that their release could lead to continued illicit trafficking.
The Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Nagaland, forwarded this proposal to the Special Secretary, Home Department, who issued detention orders without framing independent reasons. Although the trial court granted bail due to delays in filing the chargesheet, the accused remained incarcerated under the detention orders. They challenged these orders before the Gauhati High Court, which upheld them, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed that the detenus were already in judicial custody when the orders were issued, with no material indicating that they had applied for bail. Despite this, authorities presumed their likely release and potential engagement in illicit activities.
Reaffirming legal principles, the Court held that preventive detention orders against individuals already in custody must be based on clear material demonstrating a real possibility of release and future prejudicial conduct.
“There must be cogent material before the officer passing 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 of the officer passing such an order,” the Court opined.
The Court identified serious procedural lapses, including the fact that the detenus were provided copies of their detention orders in English, a language they did not understand. While authorities claimed that the contents were explained orally in Nagamese, the Court ruled that such oral explanations were insufficient to meet the requirements of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which mandates effective communication of detention grounds.
Additionally, the Court noted that the detaining authority failed to formulate separate grounds of detention, violating Section 6 of the Act, which requires detention orders to be based on distinct and self-contained grounds. The authority’s failure to record its independent satisfaction rendered the detention unlawful.
As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the Gauhati High Court’s order upholding the detention and directed the immediate release of the detenus.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy