Detaining Authority's Mention of Detention Period Cannot Prejudice Confirmatory Powers of State: Madhya Pradesh High Court"

"The Authority Fixing Period of Detention Does Not Bind the State Government in Confirmation Proceedings," - Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore decisively rejected a challenge to a preventive detention order in the case of Atul S/o Ashok Patel through Smt. Lalu Patel vs. Union of India and Others, clarifying an important legal principle under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act). The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh held that the mere mention of "six months" by the Detaining Authority does not vitiate the detention, as the final authority regarding period of detention vests solely with the State Government after the Advisory Board’s opinion.

"The State Government has the power to fix the period of detention up to twelve months in its order of confirmation irrespective of the period proposed or fixed by the detaining authority," the Court ruled.

The petitioner, aged about 21 years, was a repeat offender, facing three cases under the NDPS Act and one under the M.P. Excise Act. Detained while in custody under an NDPS offence, he challenged his preventive detention arguing that the Detaining Authority had prejudiced the matter by pre-fixing the period of six months even before the Advisory Board’s report.

Dismissing this plea, the High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pesala Nookaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, explaining, "Even if the authority has fixed the period of detention in the order passed under Section 3(2) of the PIT NDPS Act, there is no question that the State Government will be influenced by it."

Reiterating the binding principle, the Court quoted approvingly from Pesala Nookaraju, stating, "When the State Government passes a confirmatory order under Section 12 of the Act after receipt of the report from the Advisory Board, such a confirmatory order need not be restricted to a period of three months only. It can be beyond a period of three months from the date of the initial order of detention, but up to a maximum period of twelve months."

Justice Vivek Rusia, writing for the Bench, emphasized that procedural compliance regarding references to the Advisory Board and communication with the Central Government had been duly made. He observed, "No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner merely because the Detaining Authority indicated a six-month period initially, especially when the Advisory Board independently affirmed the detention after hearing the petitioner."

Rejecting the contention of procedural prejudice, the Court observed that public interest demanded firmness in cases of narcotics trafficking: "The petitioner has been continuously committing crimes of illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs even after securing bail. The impugned order of detention is desirable and in the interest of society."

In conclusion, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming that preventive detention under the PIT NDPS Act is robust and cannot be lightly interfered with on hyper-technical grounds when substantial compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards has been demonstrated.

Date of Decision: 9 April 2025