Preventive detention under PITNDPS Act is unsustainable without evidence of activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order.

The petitioner, Vaibhavbhai alias Bapu Kishorbhai Nimbark, was preventively detained following an order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the Director General of Police, C.I.D Crime and Railways, Gandhinagar

The detention was based on the petitioner being classified as an "Illicit Traffic" offender under Section 2(e) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 ("the Act of 1988")

The primary ground for detention was a single criminal case registered under Sections 8(c), 22(b), and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, dated 22.08.2025

The petitioner challenged the detention order on the grounds that it lacked material evidence to show a disturbance to public order and was passed without application of mind

1. Whether the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority to the effect that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order" was legal and sustainable under the Act of 1988

The court applied Section 2(e) of the Act of 1988, which defines "illicit traffic" regarding narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances

It further relied on the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(3)(b) regarding preventive detention and the principle established in *Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu*, which mandates that preventive detention is an exception to Article 21 and must be used only in rare cases

The court also applied the doctrine from *Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala* (AIR 2025 SC 2868), *SK. Nazneen v. State*, and *Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana*, which collectively hold that extraordinary preventive detention law should not be used to circumvent ordinary criminal procedure (such as cancellation of bail) unless the activities specifically prejudice "public order" as opposed to mere "law and order"

The court examined the detention order and found that the authority's subjective satisfaction was flawed.

While the petitioner was involved in an NDPS Act case, the court determined that such individual criminal activities do not automatically equate to a disturbance of "public order" or "public tranquility"

The bench reasoned that the state should have pursued ordinary criminal law remedies, such as applying for the cancellation of bail, rather than resorting to the "hard law" of preventive detention

Following the Apex Court's guidance, the High Court concluded that there was no sufficient material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner's actions adversely affected the society at large or the maintenance of public order in Rajkot

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned detention order dated 06.02.2026

The court directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case, and made the Rule absolute