Preventive Detention is Not a Tool for Indefinite Incarceration: Supreme Court Quashes Detention Under PITNDPS Act

Liberty Cannot Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Administrative Convenience - In a resounding affirmation of constitutional safeguards, the Supreme Court of India struck down the preventive detention of two individuals under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). In Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland (Criminal Appeal Nos. 4872-4873 of 2024), the Court held that preventive detention cannot be mechanically invoked when ordinary criminal law is sufficient to deal with an accused.

The Court declared that detaining authorities must not act as mere rubber stamps for the police but must independently assess whether a detention order is justified. It further ruled that failure to serve detention orders in a language the detainee understands is a violation of fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

A Case of Mechanical Detention Without Independent Assessment

The case originated from a drug seizure in Nagaland on April 5, 2024, when police arrested three individuals traveling in a Mahindra TUV vehicle. A search of the vehicle led to the discovery of 20 soap cases of heroin weighing 239 grams, concealed inside the gear lever cover. During interrogation, one of the accused allegedly named Adaliu Chawang, linking her to drug trafficking.

Based on this statement, authorities arrested Adaliu Chawang and her husband, Ashraf Hussain Choudhary, on April 12, 2024. Although both were already in judicial custody, the Nagaland Police recommended their preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. The Special Secretary, Home Department, Nagaland, issued detention orders on May 30, 2024, directing that both detainees be held in custody.

Their challenge before the Gauhati High Court failed on August 29, 2024, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

"Preventive Detention Cannot Be a Substitute for Criminal Prosecution" – Supreme Court Slams Abuse of Executive Power

The Supreme Court denounced the casual manner in which the detention orders were issued, holding that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure meant to prevent future crimes, not an alternative to trial and conviction under regular criminal law.

"Preventive detention is not meant to be a backdoor method of keeping individuals in custody indefinitely. The law does not permit authorities to detain a person merely because prosecution under the regular criminal law has become inconvenient," the Court observed.

Citing Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (1986), the Court reiterated that: "There must be cogent material before the detaining authority to justify an apprehension that the detainee will be released on bail and will indulge in prejudicial activity. A mere assumption or a vague reference to likelihood is insufficient."

The Court noted that at the time of their preventive detention, neither of the detainees had even applied for bail.

"The foundation of preventive detention is an imminent likelihood of release and a real possibility of the detainee engaging in further unlawful activities. Where there is no bail application pending, there can be no such likelihood. The entire premise of the detention orders collapses," the Court ruled.

"Detention Orders Must Be in a Language the Detainee Understands" – Supreme Court Condemns Violation of Fundamental Rights

A key argument raised by the detainees was that they had been served detention orders in English, a language neither of them understood. They contended that no translated copies were provided in Nagamese, Manipuri, Bengali, or Hindi—the languages they could comprehend.

The Supreme Court found this to be a serious violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees every detainee the right to make an effective representation against their detention.

"A document that is incomprehensible to the recipient cannot be said to have been communicated at all. If a person is detained without being given an opportunity to understand and contest the allegations, the detention is rendered unconstitutional," the Court held.

Relying on Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra (1962), the Court reiterated: "Mere oral translation of detention orders by police officers does not fulfill constitutional requirements. The detenue must be furnished with the grounds of detention in a script they can read and understand."

The Court observed that expecting the detainees to memorize an oral explanation of complex legal documents and then prepare a defense was unrealistic and unjust.

"Constitutional safeguards cannot be diluted for administrative convenience. Authorities cannot expect a detainee to remember the oral translation of lengthy documents and then formulate a defense. The fundamental right to be informed cannot be reduced to a mere formality," the Court declared.

"A Detaining Authority Must Apply Its Own Mind – Not Blindly Approve Police Reports"

The Supreme Court expressed serious concerns over the role of the Special Secretary, Home Department, Nagaland, who issued the detention orders. It found that instead of conducting an independent assessment, the Secretary had merely approved the proposals forwarded by the police without recording separate reasons.

"Preventive detention is a serious matter involving personal liberty. The detaining authority cannot act as a passive conveyor belt for police recommendations. There must be an active application of mind, independent evaluation of facts, and clear reasoning in the detention order," the Court ruled.

Citing Union of India v. Paul Manickam (2003), the Court reiterated: "A detention order must reflect an active satisfaction of the detaining authority based on cogent material. Mere reproduction of police allegations does not constitute due application of mind."

The Court held that the Special Secretary’s failure to frame separate grounds of detention violated the statutory mandate of Section 6 of the PITNDPS Act, which requires detention orders to be based on distinct and individualized reasoning.

"Liberty Cannot Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Executive Expediency" – Supreme Court Quashes Detention Orders

In a scathing indictment of the detaining authority’s actions, the Supreme Court set aside the Gauhati High Court’s order upholding the detention and quashed the preventive detention orders dated May 30, 2024.

"Liberty is the foundation of our democracy. No authority can curtail personal freedom except in strict compliance with constitutional safeguards. The detention orders in this case reflect a blatant disregard for the principles of natural justice and due process," the Court ruled.

The Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang, stating: "The detenus shall be set at liberty forthwith unless their continued incarceration is required in connection with any other case."

This judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court’s unwavering commitment to upholding constitutional protections against arbitrary detention. The ruling sends a strong message to law enforcement agencies and detaining authorities that:

• Preventive detention cannot be invoked as an alternative to criminal prosecution.

• Authorities must demonstrate a real likelihood of bail and future criminal activity before detaining a person.

• Detainees must be furnished detention orders in a language they can understand.

• The detaining authority must apply independent judgment and not merely endorse police recommendations.

The Supreme Court’s verdict is a landmark affirmation of the fundamental right to liberty and due process, ensuring that preventive detention remains an exception, not the norm.

Date of decision: March 5, 2025