In a criminal writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to challenge a detention order dated 26-02-2026 by respondent 1 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), whereby the petitioner was directed to be detained and kept in the Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai, a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja quashed the impugned order to the extent that it directed the petitioner to be detained in Chennai.
Though the petition challenged the detention order, the petitioner did not press the same as the order had been ratified by the Advisory Board after which respondent 1 had confirmed the impugned order. Hence, the petitioner’s limited challenge was to the direction whereby the petitioner was ordered to be detained and kept in the Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.
The Court noted that Section 5(a) of the PITNDPS Act empowers the Central Government to direct that any person in respect of whom the detention order is made, be detained at such place and under such conditions, including conditions as to maintenance, interviews, or communication with others, discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline, as it may specify by general or special order. It was noted that a special order was passed for the petitioner, but the Court stated that the impugned order or the grounds of detention did not reflect any reason for passing such order.
It was stated that in absence of reasons, directing the petitioner to be kept in Chennai when the detention order was passed in Delhi and the petitioner was a resident of Delhi, would be an arbitrary and unreasonable direction. Hence, the Court quashed the impugned detention order insofar as it had made the said direction. Since the impugned order was confirmed, the Court directed the petitioner to be brought back and be detained in Delhi instead of releasing him.
While partly allowing the petitioner, the Court directed for the present order to be complied within two weeks.
