P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent

"In the age of instant communication this delay in decision of representation of 3 months and 5 months respectively amount to flagrant violation of mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and denial of Fundamental Right of detenue." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 24, 2026, held that an unexplained delay in apprising a detenu of the right to make a representation to the Central Government, coupled with sluggish disposal of such representations, strikes at the very root of preventive detention.

A single bench of Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed that preventive detention constitutes an exceptional inroad into personal liberty under Article 21, and the procedural safeguards engrafted under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India require strict, meaningful, and expeditious compliance rather than mechanical formalities.

The petitioner approached the High Court through a habeas corpus writ petition challenging her preventive detention under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act) ordered by the Chandigarh Administration on November 1, 2025. Her previous detention order had been quashed by the Advisory Board in July 2025, after which a fresh FIR was registered against her on secret information without any recovery, search, or arrest, forming the foundation of the second detention order.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether an unexplained delay of 45 days in informing the detenu of her statutory and constitutional right to submit a representation to the Central Government vitiated the detention order. The court was also called upon to determine whether the cumulative delay of three to five months by the detaining authorities and the Central Government in transmitting and deciding her representations violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Right To Be Informed Of Competent Authorities Is An Integral Safeguard

Justice Aggarwal noted that Article 22(5) of the Constitution casts two distinct affirmative duties upon the detaining authority, the second being to afford the detenu the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention order. The bench highlighted that this opportunity carries an inseparable obligation to inform the detenu of the authorities empowered to revoke the detention, including the Central Government under the PITNDPS Act.

The court reiterated that communicating this right is an independent constitutional mandate that cannot be brushed aside as a procedural technicality or diluted by asserting that the detenu subsequently acquired knowledge or submitted a belated representation.

"The obligation to communicate the detenue’s right to make a representation to the Central Government is independent of any question of prejudice and is required to be discharged by the detaining authority in accordance with law."

Authorities Must Act With Utmost Promptitude in Preventive Detention Matters

Drawing upon the Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruling in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and the subsequent ruling in Alfiya A. v. State of Kerala, the High Court held that the failure to inform the detenu of her rights renders the constitutional opportunity to represent incomplete. The court emphasized that preventive detention is founded merely on subjective satisfaction rather than proved guilt, demanding the highest degree of diligence.

The bench stressed that when personal liberty is curtailed without trial, every statutory channel must act with urgency, and any unexplained hiatus in communicating rights or processing representations is constitutionally fatal to the detention.

"Preventive detention thus constitutes an exceptional inroad into the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The procedural safeguards engrafted in Article 22(5), therefore, require strict, meaningful and expeditious compliance, and cannot be treated as mere technicalities."

Sluggish Transmission And Decisions By Executive Amount To Callousness

Scrutinizing the chronological timeline, the bench noted that the petitioner was informed of her right to represent to the Central Government only on December 16, 2025, after a delay of approximately 45 days from the detention order dated November 1, 2025. Furthermore, the representation submitted on December 24, 2025, reached the relevant Central Government ministry only on March 16, 2026, and was finally rejected on June 2, 2026, lingering for more than five months without justification.

Citing the Apex Court decisions in Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India, Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan, Vijay Kumar v. State of J&K, Sk. Abdul Karim v. State of West Bengal, Rashid S.K. v. State of West Bengal, and Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur, the bench underscored that in the modern digital era, representations can be transmitted instantaneously via email within a single day.

"There is delay at every step i.e. informing about rights, forwarding of representations, furnishing of comments and decision of representations."

Setting aside the detention, the High Court held that the cumulative effect of the 45-day delay in apprising the petitioner of her constitutional right and the subsequent multi-month delay in deciding her representations rendered the continued detention legally unsustainable. The bench allowed the writ petition and directed the immediate release of the petitioner.

Date of Decision: August 24, 2026