Invalidity Of One Ground Does Not Vitiate Entire Detention Order Under PIT NDPS Act If Other Grounds Are Sustained: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Section 6 of PIT NDPS Act shows that where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order... made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds," Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act) remains valid even if one of the grounds is found to be unsustainable, provided the remaining grounds are sufficient to support the detention.

A division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta observed that the statutory mandate of Section 6 of the PIT NDPS Act ensures that the grounds of detention are severable and independent of each other.

The petitioner, Dunga Kumari, filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the detention of her husband, Dunga Manikyam, who was ordered to be detained for 12 months by the State Government. The detention was based on six different criminal cases involving the alleged illicit traffic of 'Ganja' (Cannabis). The petitioner primarily contended that for the sixth case, the detenu was already in judicial custody, and the detaining authority failed to record satisfaction regarding the likelihood of his release or the necessity of preventive detention while in custody.

The primary question before the court was whether the failure of the detaining authority to record satisfaction regarding the "triple test" for a detenu already in custody would vitiate the entire detention order. The court was also called upon to determine the effect of Section 6 of the PIT NDPS Act on an order based on multiple grounds where one ground is found to be technically or legally deficient.

Court’s Observations On The Triple Test For Detenus In Custody

Detaining Authority Must Record Satisfaction For Persons Already In Custody

The Court noted that the law regarding the detention of a person already in jail is well-settled through the Supreme Court’s decision in Champion R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya. It observed that while there is no prohibition in passing a detention order against a person in custody, the authority must be aware of the custody and have a reason to believe there is a real possibility of release on bail and subsequent indulgence in prejudicial activities.

The bench found that in the present case, while the authority was aware the detenu was in custody for the sixth ground, it failed to record satisfaction regarding the likelihood of bail or the necessity to prevent him from further activities. Consequently, the court held that the order of detention could not be sustained specifically on Ground No. 6.

"The detenu was in judicial custody in that case and the Principal Secretary to Government has not recorded its satisfaction that there was no need to pass the Order of Detention or on the point that there was likelihood of the detenu being released on bail."

The Doctrine Of Severability Under PIT NDPS Act

Section 6 Saves Detention Orders Based On Multiple Grounds

Despite the invalidity of the sixth ground, the Court emphasized the unique statutory protection provided under Section 6 of the PIT NDPS Act. This provision dictates that where a person is detained on two or more grounds, the order is deemed to have been made separately on each ground. Therefore, the order does not become inoperative merely because one ground is found to be vague, non-existent, irrelevant, or invalid for any other reason.

The bench highlighted that the detaining authority is deemed to have been satisfied with reference to the remaining grounds. In this case, since the challenge was restricted only to the sixth ground, the court found no reason to interfere with the detention based on the first five grounds, which remained unchallenged and valid.

"Simply because the Order of Detention cannot be sustained on Ground No.6, it cannot be said that the Order of Detention cannot be sustained on Ground Nos.1 to 5. It cannot be that the Order of Detention has to go."

Precedents On Severability Of Grounds

Court Relies On Supreme Court Rulings On PIT NDPS And COFEPOSA Acts

The Court placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland, which affirmed that Section 6 of the PIT NDPS Act specifically records that orders are deemed to be made separately on each ground. It also cited Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala, where the Apex Court dealt with a similar provision under the COFEPOSA Act and held that one irrelevant or inadmissible ground would not make the entire detention order bad.

The bench distinguished the present case from other preventive detention laws that do not contain a provision similar to Section 6. It noted that the specific legislative intent behind the PIT NDPS Act was to ensure that the detention of those involved in illicit drug trafficking is not easily thwarted by technical flaws in one of several grounds.

"What Section 5-A (of COFEPOSA/National Security Act equivalent) provides is that where there are two or more grounds covering various activities of the detenu, each activity is a separate ground by itself and if one of the ground is... invalid for any other reason whatsoever, then that will not vitiate the order of detention."

The High Court concluded that while the detention order was technically deficient regarding the sixth ground due to the non-recording of the "triple test" satisfaction, the overall detention remained valid under the remaining five grounds by virtue of Section 6 of the PIT NDPS Act. The court maintained that the detenu was not entitled to release as the order was sustained on independent valid grounds. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Date of Decision: 08 July 2026