Detention Orders Must Speak the Language of the Detenu: Himachal Pradesh High Court Flags Constitutional Gaps in Preventive Custody Under PIT NDPS Act

“Lack of State Notification on Detention Centres Under Section 5 of PIT NDPS Act Is a Procedural Irregularity That Cannot Be Ignored” –  In a significant ruling on January 5, 2026, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a constitutional challenge to a preventive detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act), while simultaneously issuing strong directions to the State of Himachal Pradesh for rectifying procedural lapses and ensuring future compliance with constitutional safeguards.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma, in Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (Criminal Writ Petition No. 19 of 2025), upheld the six-month detention of a repeat NDPS offender but flagged serious administrative irregularities—including the absence of a State notification specifying places of detention and non-communication of detention orders in a language known to the detenu, thus implicating Articles 14, 21, and 22(5) of the Constitution.

“There is no illegality in the detention, but the irregularity regarding compliance of Section 5 of the PIT NDPS Act must be rectified by the State,” the Court held, directing the Principal Secretary (Home) to ensure compliance with statutory and constitutional mandates by January 15, 2026.

“Detention Order Cannot Be in a Language Alien to the Detenu”: Court Reaffirms Article 22(5) Right to Effective Representation

The Court found that while the detention order was valid, its service in English only constituted a constitutional concern under Article 22(5), which mandates that a detenu be informed of the grounds of detention “as soon as may be” and in a manner that enables effective representation.

Though the petitioner had been able to file a writ petition, indicating some level of understanding, the Court made it clear that this cannot become the standard:

“Grounds of detention must be communicated in the language known to the detenu... In Himachal Pradesh, detention orders must be in Hindi, the official language, and where necessary, in the vernacular language of the detenu,” the Bench observed.

Repeat Drug Offender Detained Under Preventive Law

The petitioner, Pawan Kumar, through his wife, had approached the Court challenging the detention order dated 5 May 2025, passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) under Section 3(1) of the PIT NDPS Act. Kumar was already facing six criminal cases under the NDPS Act, with recovered contraband including heroin and charas, along with assets disproportionate to known income, such as 241 tola of gold, 1.2 kg silver, ₹44,500 in cash, and a house worth over ₹1 crore.

The detention was upheld by the Advisory Board on August 11, 2025, and extended for another three months on September 5, 2025. Kumar alleged that his detention between August 6 and August 11 was illegal, as the initial three-month period had lapsed, and he sought ₹50 lakhs as compensation.

“Authority Must Act on Behalf of the Government, Not Merely as an Officer” – Court Critiques Format of Detention Order

One of the core contentions raised was that the Additional Chief Secretary, although empowered, did not issue the detention order in the name of the State Government, and the order bore his individual direction to detain the petitioner.

The Court noted this procedural irregularity, stating: “Though the officer was competent by rank, the order was not issued in the name of the State Government nor stated to be on behalf of the Government.”

However, the Bench held that this irregularity alone does not vitiate the detention, given that there was substantial material justifying satisfaction under the Act, including repeat offences and recoveries indicating involvement in the business of drug trafficking.

“Absence of State Notification Under Section 5 of PIT NDPS Act Is a Lapse That Must Be Rectified”

The Court took strong exception to the fact that the State Government had not issued any general or special order specifying places of detention under Section 5 of the PIT NDPS Act, which is mandatory.

“Detention in Lala Lajpat Rai District Jail, Kangra, was made without any such notification by the State... While it does not render the detention illegal per se, it is an irregularity that the State must correct.”

In no uncertain terms, the Court directed: “The appropriate Government shall issue a general or special order specifying detention centres under Section 5 of the PIT NDPS Act by January 15, 2026.”

“Computation of Detention Period Begins From Date of Custody, Not Order” – No Illegal Detention Found

Rejecting the petitioner’s claim of illegal custody between August 6 and 11, 2025, the Court clarified that the detention period is counted from the actual date of detention, i.e., June 9, 2025, not from the date of the order (May 5, 2025).

“The claim that detention expired on 5.8.2025 is misconceived... Detention expired on 9.9.2025, and the extension by the Advisory Board in August was within time,” the Court held, denying the ₹50 lakh compensation claim.

“Execution of Detention Order on Release from Bail Is Legally Valid” – Section 4 of PIT NDPS Act Complied With

The petitioner had also argued that the detention order was executed unlawfully at the time he was about to be released on bail in an NDPS case.

The Court rejected this argument, explaining that execution of detention orders under PIT NDPS Act is governed by Section 4, which permits execution as per arrest warrant procedures.

Drawing parallels with post-conviction arrest under Section 418 CrPC / Section 458 BNSS, the Bench held:

“The warrant of detention, like post-conviction arrest, takes effect when the detenu is not physically present... Detention on 9.6.2025, upon bail release, is valid execution under Section 4.”

“Material on Record Sufficient to Justify Detention” – Court Finds Repeated NDPS Violations and Disproportionate Assets

The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s plea that there was no apprehension of repeat offences, holding that the repeated recoveries, proliferation of FIRs, and the nature of assets seized clearly justified the authority’s subjective satisfaction under the Act.

“Drug trafficking had become a family business for the petitioner. The assets recovered point to illicit income. There is no fault in the authority’s conclusion,” the Court stated.

Final Directions Issued to State for Constitutional Compliance

While dismissing the petition, the Court issued firm directions to the Himachal Pradesh Government:

1. Issue general or special orders under Section 5 of the PIT NDPS Act specifying designated detention centres by January 15, 2026.

2. Ensure all future detention orders and grounds are served in Hindi, the official language of the State, and additionally in any vernacular language understood by the detenu.

3. Clearly inform detainees, in writing and in a language they understand, of their right to representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

4. Principal Secretary (Home) is directed to ensure compliance with all constitutional and statutory safeguards.

While upholding the legality of Pawan Kumar’s preventive detention under the PIT NDPS Act, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has sent a clear constitutional message to the executive: procedural compliance is not optional, particularly when it implicates the personal liberty of an individual under Article 21.

“Detention orders must not only be legal but also constitutionally valid in their form, language, and execution,” the Court emphasized.

The case underscores that preventive detention, though permissible under the law, cannot override constitutional mandates, and linguistic, procedural, and statutory safeguards must be scrupulously followed.

Date of Decision: 05 January 2026