PITNDPS Act | Unexplained Delay of Six Months Snaps ‘Live Link’ Between Prejudicial Activity and Detention: J&K High Court

“The preventive detentions need to be passed with great care and caution keeping in mind that a citizen's most valuable and inherent human right is being curtailed... it is a valuable trust in the hands of the trustees”— In a seminal ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, comprising Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, quashed a preventive detention order under the PITNDPS Act, holding that an unexplained delay of nearly six months between the alleged prejudicial activity and the detention order snaps the required 'live link', rendering the detention illegal.

Delay and Subjective Satisfaction

The Court was hearing a Habeas Corpus petition filed by Vishal Kumar, who challenged his detention order dated March 1, 2025, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. The detention was based on the petitioner's alleged involvement in three FIRs under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS). The petitioner contended that he had already been granted bail in all three cases and that the detention order was passed mechanically without proper application of mind.

Justice Wani observed a glaring temporal gap in the detaining authority's logic. The last alleged prejudicial activity attributed to the petitioner occurred on September 18, 2024, yet the detention order was not issued until March 1, 2025—a delay of approximately six months. The Court held that such an inordinate delay, without a satisfactory explanation, casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

“Undue and unreasonable gap between the alleged accusation and the passing of the detention order snaps the live-link between the two.”

Failure of ‘Normal Law’ Must Be Established

The Court heavily criticized the detaining authority for failing to justify why ordinary criminal law was insufficient to deal with the petitioner. It was noted that the petitioner was already on bail in the cited FIRs, and the State had neither alleged misuse of liberty nor moved for cancellation of bail.

The Bench reiterated the principle laid down in Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, emphasizing that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary law enforcement. The Court found that the detaining authority had not recorded any satisfaction regarding the inadequacy of normal law, thereby vitiating the order.

“It was incumbent upon the learned detaining authority to address itself as to how the normal criminal law was inadequate to deal with the petitioner, who had already been granted bail.”

Procedural Safeguards and the ‘Vernacular’ Right

The judgment also highlighted significant procedural lapses violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court pointed to discrepancies in the execution receipts—one claiming 84 pages of documents were supplied, and another claiming only 8. This raised doubts about whether the petitioner was furnished with the complete material relied upon for his detention.

Furthermore, the Court found that the grounds of detention were not explained to the petitioner in a language he understood, depriving him of his right to make an effective representation. The Court also noted that the petitioner’s representation dated March 27, 2025, was never placed before the Advisory Board, which had already submitted its report on March 17, 2025, thereby rendering the constitutional safeguard of representation an "exercise in futility."

“The failure to supply the relevant material... disables the detenu from making an effective representation at the earliest opportunity.”

Terming the detention order as an outcome of non-application of mind, the High Court allowed the petition. Justice Wani ruled that the procedural safeguards under Section 3(3) of the PITNDPS Act and Article 22(5) had been compromised. Consequently, the detention order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to release the petitioner forthwith.

Date of Decision: 29/12/2025