Bombay HC Declares PITNDPS Detainee’s Continued Detention Illegal Over Centre’s Unexplained Delays In Considering His Representation

In brief

The question

1. Whether the unexplained delay by the Central Government in receiving, processing and deciding the Petitioner’s representation rendered his continued detention illegal.

The court held

The Court held that the Petitioner’s continued detention pursuant to the detention order was illegal.

It also directed

The Court directed that he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The Petition was disposed of.

01Facts

The Petitioner was detained under an order dated 22 January 2026.

¶ 4–5

Although the detention grounds referred to several offences, the order relied in particular on an NDPS case in which a bail application was pending.

¶ 4–5

The Petitioner expressly limited his challenge to the legality of his continued detention, relying on delay in processing his representation to the Central Government.

¶ 3, 7

He submitted the representation on 16 February 2026; it was received by the Central Government’s PITNDPS Division on 17 March, forwarded to the State Government for comments that day, and the comments were received on 2 June. The Central Government rejected the representation on 3 July 2026.

¶ 10–11

The State Government had separately rejected the representation on 21 May 2026.

¶ 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the unexplained delay by the Central Government in receiving, processing and deciding the Petitioner’s representation rendered his continued detention illegal.

¶ 9–14, 18

ii.2. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to release on that basis, notwithstanding that he challenged continued detention rather than the detention order itself.

¶ 3, 18–19

03Law Applied

Article 22 of the Constitution protects a detenu’s valuable right to make an effective representation against detention, which must be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶ 15 · ¶ 18

Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 requires the State Government to forward its report to the Central Government within ten days where the detention order is made by the State Government or its empowered officer.

¶ 16

Section 12(1) empowers the Central Government to revoke a detention order notwithstanding that it was made by a State Government or its officer.

¶ 16–17

The judgment cites no judicial precedent.

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8 Section 22

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 Section 3 Section 12

General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 21

04Reasoning

The Court assessed the timeline disclosed in the Central Government’s affidavit and found the delay unexplained at each material stage: approximately one month before the representation reached the PITNDPS Division, approximately three months for the State Government’s comments, and a further month before rejection.

¶ 10–14

Given the Central Government’s power to revoke the State detention order and the Petitioner’s right to an expeditious decision on his representation, the Court held that the unexplained delays prejudiced that right and made continued detention impermissible.

¶ 15–18