Court Cites Violation of Article 21 and Lack of Imminent Threat Justification Under PITNDPS Act
In a significant judgment delivered on January 30, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the preventive detention order against Gurnam Singh, alias Gama, under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The Court found the detention order legally unsustainable due to a lack of credible and proximate evidence indicating an immediate threat to public order.
Presided over by Justice Manisha Batra, the Court addressed the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to nullify the detention orders dated July 14, 2025, and September 15, 2025. These orders were issued by the Haryana government, detaining Singh for six months based on his alleged involvement in five cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, all involving non-commercial quantities of contraband substances.
The Court emphasized that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal proceedings and highlighted the importance of maintaining the live and proximate link between the alleged activities and the necessity of detention. Justice Batra cited the unexplained delay of over six months in executing the detention order as breaking this essential link, thereby transforming the preventive measure into a punitive one, which contravenes Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment pointed out that the mere past involvement in NDPS Act cases, where Singh was already granted bail, does not warrant preventive detention. The Court criticized the detaining authority's failure to consider the bail conditions imposed by the criminal courts, which could have been sufficient to prevent any prejudicial activities. This oversight was deemed to reflect non-application of mind by the authorities and led to the conclusion that the detention lacked justification.
Referencing several Supreme Court judgments, including Golam Hussain v. Commissioner of Police and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, the High Court reiterated that preventive detention requires credible evidence of an imminent threat to public order, not just past criminal conduct. The judgment underscored that preventive detention should only be invoked when there is specific and recent material indicating a direct threat, which was absent in Singh's case.
Ultimately, the Court ordered Singh's immediate release, reinforcing the judicial principle that preventive detention should be strictly construed and used sparingly, ensuring it does not infringe upon the individual's fundamental rights without substantial justification.
Bottom Line:
Preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act cannot be justified solely based on past criminal cases unless there is credible, proximate, and compelling material indicating an immediate threat to public order.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21 of the Constitution of India, PITNDPS Act, 1988 Section 3(1)
Gurnam Singh @ Gama v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2846651
