Repeated post-release involvement in narcotic offences justifies preventive detention when ordinary law proves inadequate.

The petitioner was detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (“PITNDPS Act”) pursuant to detention order dated 26 September 2025.

The sponsoring authority relied upon the petitioner’s involvement in four NDPS cases registered at Police Station Pampore: FIR No. 150/2014 under Section 8/20, FIR No. 35/2017 under Section 8/21, FIR No. 98/2020 under Section 8/20, and FIR No. 57/2025 under Sections 8/21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner had previously been detained under the PITNDPS Act on 23 December 2020 and was released on 27 December 2021.

He was subsequently arrested on 21 May 2025 in FIR No. 57/2025 after 2.2 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from him, and was later granted bail.

The respondents contended that the petitioner continued illicit drug-trafficking activities despite the earlier detention and grant of bail, necessitating preventive detention.

The detention order was executed on 27 September 2025; the respondents stated that the grounds and relied-upon material were supplied to the petitioner, explained to him in Urdu/Kashmiri, and that he was informed of his right to make a representation.

The Advisory Board examined the case and opined in favour of continued detention, which was confirmed by Government Order dated 6 November 2025.

1. Whether the detention order was founded on vague or imaginary grounds and reflected non-application of mind by the detaining authority.

2. Whether the petitioner was denied an effective right to make a representation because he was not informed of the authority to whom the representation could be made.

3. Whether the grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, thereby demonstrating non-application of mind.

4. Whether the detaining authority failed to establish that ordinary criminal law had proved inadequate to prevent the petitioner’s alleged illicit activities.

5. Whether the petitioner was denied a hearing before the Advisory Board, either personally or through counsel.

6. Whether the petitioner was denied constitutional and procedural safeguards because the grounds were in a language he could not understand and the relied-upon material was not supplied to him.

The Court applied the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, under which preventive detention may be ordered to prevent continued illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

It also applied the constitutional and procedural safeguards governing preventive detention, including the detenu’s right to receive the grounds of detention and relevant relied-upon material in a comprehensible form, and the right to make an effective representation to the competent authority.

The Court further treated the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction as valid where it is based on relevant antecedents, subsequent conduct, and an assessment that ordinary legal measures are insufficient.

The Court held that the detention order was based on relevant and specific material, namely the petitioner’s involvement in four NDPS cases, his prior detention under the PITNDPS Act, and his alleged re-engagement in drug-related activity after release and grant of bail.

These circumstances demonstrated a continuing propensity and supported the detaining authority’s satisfaction that the petitioner’s release would prejudice public health and social order.

The Court rejected the allegation that the grounds merely reproduced the police dossier, finding no similarity sufficient to establish mechanical adoption of the sponsoring authority’s conclusions.

It further held that the petitioner’s repeated involvement in similar offences despite prior detention and bail showed that ordinary criminal-law measures had not effectively deterred him.

The representation-related challenge failed because the execution report recorded that the petitioner was informed of his right to make a representation to the Government and the detaining authority, and he acknowledged the same by signing the report.

The challenge concerning the Advisory Board was rejected because the petitioner was informed of his right to represent but did not submit a representation, while the Board considered the available material and gave an opinion favouring detention.

Finally, the Court relied on the execution report and receipt showing that the detention warrant, grounds, dossier, and other relevant material comprising 91 leaves were supplied and that the grounds were read over and explained to the petitioner in Urdu/Kashmiri.

It held that the detention order was neither vague nor vitiated by non-application of mind; the petitioner was informed of his right to make a representation; the grounds were not a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier; ordinary law had proved inadequate in light of his repeated alleged involvement in NDPS offences; no denial of Advisory Board safeguards was established; and the detention documents and relied-upon material had been supplied and explained in a language understood by him.

The habeas corpus petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the detention record was directed to be returned to counsel for the respondents.