Preventive Detention Cannot Override Personal Liberty with Vague Allegations – J&K High Court Slams Authorities for Unlawful Detention Under PIT NDPS Act

“Power, Influence, and Bail Are No Grounds for Preventive Detention” – High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, in a significant judgment, quashed the detention of Reyaz Ahmad Channa under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS), citing vague, unsupported, and unconstitutional grounds, and directing the Director General of Police to seek an explanation from the then SSP, Srinagar, for making contemptuous remarks against the judiciary in the detention dossier.

Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi allowed HCP No. 29/2025, holding that the detention order dated 20.12.2024, issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, was violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and devoid of subjective satisfaction based on relevant material.

“The grounds of detention are vague, imaginary, and highly generalised, lacking any specific date, time or place... making it impossible for the detenue to make an effective representation,” the Court observed.

“Past FIRs Closed or Without Charges—Yet Used to Justify Preventive Detention”

The detenue, Reyaz Ahmad Channa, was previously subject to various FIRs under NDPS and RPC laws. However, multiple cases were either closed at the investigation stage or pending without charges:

• FIR No. 56/2018 under Sections 341, 307 RPC – closed as not proved

• FIR No. 08/2018 under Section 447 RPC – dismissed as not admitted

• FIR No. 22/2019 under NDPS – no charges for over a year; trial pending

• FIR No. 56/2024 under NDPS – detenue released on bail

Despite these factual positions, the detaining authority relied on these FIRs without mentioning outcomes or providing bail orders to the detenue, rendering the detention order unconstitutional.

“Failure to Provide Bail Orders Violates Article 22(5)” – Court Cites Supreme Court Precedents

The Court emphasized that non-supply of bail orders and other relevant materials to the detenue prevents effective representation against the detention order.

“Bail application and bail orders constitute vital material. Its non-consideration by the detaining authority or non-supply to the detenu is violative of Article 22(5),” the Court quoted from A. Sowkath Ali v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 2662.

Similarly, the Court noted the absence of a live and proximate link between the detenue’s past conduct and the alleged need for preventive detention, rendering the detention a punitive measure in disguise.

“One Swallow Does Not Make a Summer” – Single Allegations Cannot Justify Detention Without Live Link

Relying on Chowdarapu Raghunandan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2002 SC 1460) and Ameena Begum v. State of Telengana (1987) 4 SCC 58, the Court reiterated:

“Preventive detention must be based on a reasonable prognosis of future behaviour from past conduct. A single act of alleged criminality does not justify preventive detention unless a live link exists.”

The Court found that stale, uncorroborated, and vague references to FIRs failed this test.

“Kingpin or Not, Judiciary Can’t Be Accused of Being Influenced” – SSP’s Remarks in Dossier Invite Judicial Wrath

In one of the most serious observations, the Court condemned the language used by the then SSP, Srinagar, Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, in the detention dossier, which stated:

“The subject has managed bail and challenged detention orders before Hon’ble Court by using influence and power, as he is a kingpin of the drug mafia…”

This statement, according to the Court, amounted to casting aspersions on the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary:

“The SSP was neither entrusted with the authority nor obliged under law to demean this Institution... The disrespectful language is contemptuous to say the least.”

Accordingly, the Court issued a direct order to the Director General of Police (DGP):

“The DGP shall seek explanation from Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, the then SSP, Srinagar, and initiate action against him for trying to demean the stature and integrity of the judiciary.”

"Detention Order Quashed, Detenue to Be Released Immediately"

Justice Kazmi concluded the judgment in emphatic terms:

“Viewed thus, the petition is allowed and the detention order dated 20.12.2024 is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the detenue forthwith, if not required in any other case.”

The judgment also directed the Registry to furnish a copy to the DGP for compliance and submission of an action-taken report regarding the conduct of the SSP.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2025