In a petition invoking writ jurisdiction before the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of a detention order dated 19-12-2025 by the Divisional Commissioner, Srinagar (detaining authority), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to be immediately released from detention.
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Awantipora (recommending authority) had submitted a dossier alleging that the petitioner had transformed into a notorious drug peddler, become a principal dealer of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, developed contacts with drug peddlers operative in his area, and was a member of a large drug mafia relentlessly involved in drug trafficking affecting the health and welfare of the people of the area. The recommending authority referred to an FIR under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act in which the petitioner was admitted to bail, and alleged that the petitioner, in violation of a bail condition that he would not indulge in similar activities, was found clandestinely and discretely involved in similar activities, which could not be agitated before the trial court for cancellation of bail, necessitating preventive detention.
Based on the dossier, the detaining authority concluded that the petitioner was a part and active member of a large drug mafia, supplying drugs against hefty amounts to the gullible youth and had adopted drug trafficking as a regular source of his earning, and ordered detention under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The petitioner challenged the detention order stating that the detaining authority had not considered material facts such as the petitioner’s arrest on 10-09-2025, his custody until bail was granted on 27-09-2025 and made absolute on 10-10-2025, vitiating the subjective satisfaction required before passing the order.
It was also contended that the grounds of detention did not disclose any activity prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory within the meaning of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act, and that the grounds were too vague and illusory, since apart from the FIR involving a small quantity of contraband, the petitioner had not been found involved in any subversive activity or any other pending FIR.
The Court noted that the petitioner was apprehended in the said FIR and 1.3 gm of Heroin recovered from his possession before he was admitted to bail by the competent court. The Court said that it failed to understand what prevented the prosecution or the Union Territory from approaching the trial court for cancellation of bail, or the higher court to assail the bail order, if the petitioner was found discretely involved in similar activities. It was found that although the dossier and grounds of detention created an impression that the petitioner was a hardcore criminal, a careful examination revealed that the allegations were vague and could not form the basis for preventive detention, as neither the screening committee nor the recommending authority had furnished specific details as to the drug mafia of which the petitioner was a member, to whom he had been supplying drugs, how drug trafficking was a regular source of his earning, or how he was motivating and influencing young minds into drug consumption.
The Court stated that the allegations attributed to the petitioner were an ordinary law and order problem that should have been tackled under the relevant penal laws and that since the petitioner was involved in an FIR, if he was found involved in repeated activities, he should have been apprehended by the police agencies for the same. It was stated that where the ordinary law of the land is adequate to deal with the criminal activities of an individual, resort to preventive detention is illegal and unconstitutional.
It was held that conduct of the detaining authority exercising such a vast jurisdiction must be reasonable and in tune with the concept of justice and fairness. The Court stated that personal liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed on vague and dogmatic assertions of the executive. Thus, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be immediately released from detention, provided he was not involved in any other case.
