Preventive detention based on conjectures without fresh substantive material is arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the detention order passed under Section 10 of the PITNDPS Act was founded on substantive material or mere conjectures and surmises

The court held

The Court held that the impugned detention order was unsustainable as it was not founded on legally admissible material and violated the petitioner's constitutional rights

It also directed

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned detention order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) and the Istagasa dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P-2)

01Facts

The petitioner, an auto driver, was convicted under the NDPS Act in 2021 but was subsequently granted suspension of sentence and bail by the High Court in August 2022

¶ 3

Since his release, he has earned a livelihood through lawful means with no further criminal complaints registered against him

¶ 3

In September 2024, the respondents initiated proceedings under Section 10 of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), based on an istagasa (police report) alleging he was a habitual offender

¶ 4

Despite the petitioner’s reply denying involvement in illegal activities, Respondent No. 2 issued an order dated 18.11.2024 directing his detention for three months in District Jail, Sakti

¶ 4, 8

The petitioner challenged this order via a writ petition, alleging a violation of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights

¶ 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the detention order passed under Section 10 of the PITNDPS Act was founded on substantive material or mere conjectures and surmises

¶ 10

ii.2. Whether the impugned detention and the underlying istagasa violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India

¶ 5, 11

03Law Applied

Section 10 of the PITNDPS Act, 1988, which provides for the detention of persons to prevent illicit trafficking

¶ 4, 8

Constitutional safeguards for personal liberty enshrined in Articles 14 and 21

¶ 5, 11

Guidelines established in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260, which mandate that the power to arrest or detain must be exercised only upon reasonable satisfaction and justification, as denying liberty is a serious matter

¶ 6-7

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 Section 10

04Reasoning

The Court found that the detention order was based almost entirely on the petitioner’s previous 2020 conviction, for which he was currently on bail pending appeal.

¶ 10

It noted that the respondents failed to produce any fresh, substantive material or specific complaints occurring between the petitioner’s release in 2022 and the 2024 notice

¶ 10

The Court characterized the istagasa as vague and lacking reliable oral or documentary evidence

¶ 10

It reasoned that branding an individual a "habitual offender" based on a single pending appeal and unsubstantiated police reports constitutes a failure of application of mind

¶ 10

The Court concluded that in the absence of credible evidence, an order curtailing personal liberty is arbitrary and amounts to an abuse of the process of law

¶ 11

05Holding

The Court held that the impugned detention order was unsustainable as it was not founded on legally admissible material and violated the petitioner's constitutional rights

¶ 11

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned detention order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) and the Istagasa dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P-2)

¶ 12

LawLens.Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF