Court Finds Lack of Cogent Evidence and Procedural Lapses in Detention Under PITNDPS Act
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside the preventive detention order against Validad Khan, also known as Mullah, under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The order was initially issued by the Union of India to prevent Khan from engaging in illicit drug trafficking activities.
The High Court, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, found multiple procedural lapses and a lack of cogent evidence to justify Khan's detention. The bench observed that preventive detention requires tangible material indicating the likelihood of the detainee's release on bail and subsequent engagement in prejudicial activities. In Khan's case, the court noted that he was already in judicial custody and had not applied for bail, undermining the grounds for his preventive detention.
Further, the court highlighted the failure to provide Khan with essential documents in Urdu, a language he understands, thereby violating his right to effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court also criticized the delay in both the issuance and execution of the detention order, stating that such delays raise doubts about the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.
The judgment emphasized that mere involvement in previous criminal cases does not warrant preventive detention, as the purpose of such an order is preventive, not punitive. The court also noted the ambiguity in the alleged quantity of drugs seized, which was not clearly communicated to Khan, thereby leaving it to conjecture.
In light of these findings, the court quashed the detention order dated March 20, 2025, and directed the immediate release of Validad Khan from custody. The court's decision underscores the importance of adherence to procedural safeguards and the necessity of substantial evidence in preventive detention cases.
Bottom Line:
Preventive detention under PITNDPS Act requires cogent and tangible evidence to justify that the detenu, while in judicial custody, is likely to be released on bail and would continue prejudicial activities upon release. Mere apprehension is insufficient.
Statutory provision(s):
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 Section 3(1), Constitution of India, 1950 Article 22(5)
Validad Khan @ Mullah v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2864858
