Detention of a Delhi resident in Chennai jail without recorded reasons is arbitrary: Delhi High Court quashes transfer under PITNDPS Act

The petitioner challenged a detention order dated 26.02.2026 issued by the Union of India under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act).

While the order was initially challenged on merits, the petitioner’s counsel limited the prayer to the specific direction that the petitioner be detained at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai, rather than in Delhi where she resides and where the order was passed.

The detention had been ratified by the Advisory Board and confirmed by the Central Government on 15.06.2026.

The petitioner contended that the transfer to a distant state without recorded reasons was arbitrary, caused language barriers, and rendered the detention punitive.

Section 5 of the PITNDPS Act, 1988, which empowers the appropriate government to regulate the place and conditions of detention by general or special order.

Under Section 5(a), the government may specify the place of detention, and under Section 5(b), it may remove a person from one place of detention to another.

The Court followed the constitutional principle that any discretionary power vested in the government, including the power to determine the location of detention, must be exercised in a reasonable manner and supported by recorded reasons.

The Court observed that while Section 5(a) of the PITNDPS Act grants the Central Government the authority to pass a "special order" directing a detenu to be kept in a specific location, such power is not absolute or immune from judicial review.

In this case, the impugned order and the accompanying Grounds of Detention were silent on why the petitioner—a resident of Delhi whose detention order originated in Delhi—was required to be sent to a prison in Chennai.

The Court reasoned that in the absence of valid reasons, such a transfer becomes arbitrary and unreasonable, effectively making the detention punitive by isolating the detenu from her family and creating language barriers. The Court found that although the statutory power exists, its exercise in this instance lacked the necessary factual foundation or justification in the record.

The Court held that the direction was arbitrary due to the lack of recorded reasons.

Consequently, the Court directed the authorities to bring the petitioner back and detain her in a prison in Delhi within two weeks.

The Court reserved the petitioner’s liberty to challenge the merits of the detention order in fresh proceedings.