Supreme Court Quashes Preventive Detention Orders for Lack of Separate Grounds and Inadequate Communication

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih heard appeals against the Gauhati High Court’s dismissal of writ petitions challenging preventive detention orders issued under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The appeals arose from detention orders dated 30.05.2024 issued by the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, directing preventive detention of two persons implicated in a heroin seizure.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the common judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 29.08.2024, quashed the detention orders of 30.05.2024 and subsequent confirmation and extension orders, and directed that the detenus be set at liberty forthwith unless continued incarceration was warranted in connection with any other case. The Court found that the detaining authority had not applied its mind, had not spelt out separate grounds of detention, and had failed to communicate the grounds in a language and script the detenus could understand. The Court observed that authorities “paid mere lip service to the mandatory requirements and mechanically went through the motions.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Lastly, the material placed on record reflects that the detaining authority, viz., the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, did not even make separate grounds of detention but merely acted upon the proposals for detention forwarded to her by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Nagaland. The cryptic orders of detention passed by her on 30.05.2024 merely recorded that she was satisfied, on careful examination of such proposals and other supporting documents, that sufficient grounds were made out for the detention of Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang. This is not in keeping with the statutory scheme, inasmuch as Section 6 of the Act of 1988 specifically refers to the order of detention ‘being made’ on separate grounds. Further, Section 3(1) also records that the authorized officer, be it of the Central Government or of a State Government, must be ‘satisfied’ that the person concerned required to be detained so as to prevent him/her from engaging in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Such ‘satisfaction’ of the detaining authority necessarily has to be spelt out after application of mind by way of separate grounds of detention made by the detaining authority itself and cannot be by inference from a casual reference to the material placed before such detaining authority or a bald recital to the effect that the detaining authority was ‘satisfied on examination of the proposals and supporting documents’ that the detention of the individuals concerned was necessary.”

Background The disputes arose after a Mahindra TUV was intercepted on the night of 05.04.2024 in Khuzama village; searches recovered 20 soap cases containing 239 grams of heroin. A Suo Motu FIR was registered on 06.04.2024. Two detainees, Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang, were arrested on 12.04.2024 and remanded. Proposals for preventive detention were forwarded to the Special Secretary, and separate detention orders under Section 3(1) were passed on 30.05.2024, each for an initial period of three months. The detenus submitted representations asserting that the grounds were served in English, a language they did not understand, and complaining that the orders were mechanical and did not indicate that detention was required because they were likely to be released on bail. Their representations were rejected by state authorities; the Advisory Board and the Central Government upheld the detention. The State later confirmed and extended detention orders, but both detenus obtained statutory/default bail in the criminal NDPS case on 28.11.2024 due to non‑filing of the charge sheet, yet remained detained on the preventive orders.

The Court reviewed statutory provisions of the Act of 1988, Articles 22(3) and 22(5) of the Constitution, and precedents including Kamarunnissa, Binod Singh, Rekha, Paul Manickam and the Constitution Bench in Harikisan on adequacy of communication. The Court reproduced the Harikisan principle that “service of the Order and the grounds of detention in English, with their oral translation or explanation by the police officer serving them does not fulfil the requirements of the law,” and held that voluminous annexures and oral explanation could not substitute written grounds in a language and script the detenus could understand. It found absence of cogent material showing a real possibility of release on bail at the time the orders were passed and concluded that the detaining authority failed to record its own separate grounds and satisfaction as required by Sections 3(1) and 6 of the Act of 1988. The appeals were allowed and the detention orders quashed; the detenus were ordered to be released forthwith unless legally detained in other matters.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 4872-4873 of 2024 (Citation: 2025 INSC 321) Case Title: Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. The State of Nagaland and others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the reported judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the reported judgment