9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 325 - SC - Indian LawsPreventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 - HELD THAT - The orders of detention passed against Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang cannot be sustained. The authorities concerned paid mere lip service to the mandatory requirements and mechanically went through the motions while dealing with the cases of these two individuals. The proposals submitted by the Investigating Officer noted the fact that both the detenus were arrested on 12.04.2024 and that they had not been released on bail. Reference was also made to their involvement in earlier cases. In the case of Adaliu Chawang the Investigating Officer stated that she was arrested in Meghalaya in connection with FIR dated 21.04.2021 but noted that she was not treated as absconding after being granted bail. In the case of Ashraf Hussain Choudhary the Investigating Officer stated that he was earlier arrested in connection with a case registered by Dimapur East PS in the year 2022 but noted that he was also not absconding in relation thereto after securing bail. The Investigating Officer however did not state anything about either of the detenus seeking bail in relation to Narcotics PS Case No. 005/24 after being arrested on 12.04.2024. The covering letters dated 14.05.2024 and 17.05.2024 addressed by the Additional Director General of Police to the Special Secretary Home Department Government of Nagaland reiterated the factum of both the detenus having been arrested on 12.04.2024 and their being in judicial custody on that date. He however went on to state that if granted bail there was a great chance of both of them continuing with illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. There was no basis whatsoever for this ipse dixit statement as it is an admitted fact that neither Ashraf Hussain Choudhary nor Adaliu Chawang had applied for bail at the time the detention orders were passed against them. 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. The Gauhati High Court erred in the application of settled legal norms while testing the validity of the impugned detention orders - Appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include: 1. Whether the preventive detention orders against Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang were validly issued under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (the Act of 1988), given that they were already in custody at the time of the orders. 2. Whether the procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which require communication of the grounds of detention to the detenus in a language they understand, were adhered to. 3. Whether the detaining authority applied its mind independently in issuing the detention orders, as required under the Act of 1988. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Validity of Preventive Detention Orders - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 3(1) of the Act of 1988 empowers the detention of individuals to prevent illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs. The precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases such as Kamarunnissa vs. Union of India and Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu establish that detention orders can be issued for individuals already in custody only if there is cogent material indicating a real possibility of their release on bail and a likelihood of them engaging in prejudicial activities post-release. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that neither Ashraf Hussain Choudhary nor Adaliu Chawang had applied for bail at the time the detention orders were issued. The Court emphasized that the authorities did not provide any cogent material to justify the likelihood of their release on bail or the probability of them engaging in illicit activities thereafter. - Key Evidence and Findings: The Investigating Officer's proposals and the Additional Director General of Police's letters mentioned the detenus' prior arrests but failed to indicate any pending bail applications or any real possibility of their release. - Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from relevant precedents, determining that the authorities did not meet the required standard of evidence to justify preventive detention while the individuals were already in custody. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The argument that the detenus might continue illicit activities if released was dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence. - Conclusions: The Court concluded that the preventive detention orders were not justified under the circumstances, as the necessary legal standards were not met. 2. Communication of Grounds of Detention - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that grounds of detention be communicated to the detenu in a language they understand. The precedent in Harikisan vs. State of Maharashtra requires that the grounds be provided in a language and script the detenu can comprehend. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the grounds of detention were not adequately communicated to the detenus, as they were provided in English, a language neither detenu understood. Oral explanations in Nagamese were deemed insufficient. - Key Evidence and Findings: The proposals noted the languages known to the detenus, which did not include English. The authorities' claim of oral communication in Nagamese did not meet constitutional requirements. - Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from Harikisan, determining that effective communication of the grounds was not achieved, thus violating Article 22(5). - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The authorities' assertion that oral explanations sufficed was rejected based on constitutional and precedential requirements for written communication. - Conclusions: The Court concluded that the failure to communicate the grounds in a comprehensible manner rendered the detention orders invalid. 3. Independent Application of Mind by Detaining Authority - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 6 of the Act of 1988 requires that detention orders be based on separate grounds made by the detaining authority itself, reflecting its satisfaction and application of mind. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the Special Secretary, Home Department, merely acted upon the proposals without formulating independent grounds for detention, which is contrary to the statutory scheme. - Key Evidence and Findings: The orders of detention were found to be cryptic and lacked separate grounds formulated by the detaining authority, indicating a mechanical approach. - Application of Law to Facts: The Court determined that the statutory requirements for independent satisfaction and formulation of grounds by the detaining authority were not met. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court dismissed the authorities' reliance on the proposals as insufficient for demonstrating independent application of mind. - Conclusions: The Court concluded that the detention orders were invalid due to the lack of independent application of mind by the detaining authority. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - The Court held that the preventive detention orders against Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang were invalid due to non-compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements. - The Court emphasized the necessity of cogent material to justify detention of individuals already in custody, as established in precedents like Kamarunnissa and Rekha. - The Court reaffirmed the requirement for communication of detention grounds in a language understood by the detenu, as per Harikisan. - The Court highlighted the need for independent satisfaction and formulation of grounds by the detaining authority, as required under the Act of 1988. - The judgment concluded with the quashing of the detention orders and the directive for the immediate release of the detenus, unless detained in connection with any other case.
|
