Back
Upholds PIT NDPS Detention Despite Invalid Ground, Cites
A Division Bench of the dismissed a petition, ruling that failure to satisfy the mandatory on one of six grounds of does not invalidate the entire detention order under the , thanks to the enshrined in Section 6 of the statute.
The Bench and the Parties
Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Subhendu Samanta presided over the writ petition filed by Dunga Kumari, wife of the detenu Dunga Manikyam, seeking his release from . The State of Andhra Pradesh and its Principal Secretary to Government (FAC), , were the respondents.
Background: Six Cases, Massive Ganja Seizures
The detenu was placed under via G.O.Rt.No.711 dated , passed under , on grounds of involvement in "" . The detention order rested on six criminal cases involving ganja seizures ranging from 29 kg to a staggering 600 kg, along with the seizure of vehicles — autos, cars, and a Bolero — used for transport.
After the found , the State Government confirmed the 12-month detention through G.O.Rt.No.931 dated .
The Sole Challenge: Flawed Sixth Ground
The petitioner's counsel, , advanced a single submission: the detention order was unsustainable because, in the sixth case (Cr.No.42/2025), the detenu was already in at the time of the detention order, and the failed to record its about the imminent possibility of his release on bail or the necessity of detention despite his custody.
Relying on and several High Court precedents, the counsel argued this violated the "" requirement applicable when a detention order is passed against a person in custody.
State's Counter: Severability Saves the Order
, the Government Pleader, conceded that no regarding bail likelihood was recorded for the sixth ground. However, he contended that — which deems a multi-ground detention order to have been made separately on each ground — ensures the order survives on the remaining valid grounds.
Legal Analysis: The and Section 6
The Court accepted that the detention order failed the on Ground No.6. Quoting , it reiterated the threefold requirement: awareness of custody, reason to believe in real possibility of bail, and the likelihood of indulging in prejudicial activity if released.
However, the pivotal question was whether this flaw vitiated the entire order. The Court answered in the negative, placing decisive reliance on
, which provides that a detention order made on two or more grounds
"shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds"
and shall not be invalid merely because one or some grounds are vague, non-existent, or
"invalid for any other reason whatsoever."
The Bench drew support from Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland (2025), (on the identically worded ), and , all affirming the severability principle.
Key Observations
"So, even if it be taken that the Order cannot be sustained on Ground No.6, for non-consideration of three requirements with respect to the detenu being in , it cannot be held that the had not satisfied on the other grounds... It shall be deemed that the State Government or the had made the Order of Detention after being satisfied on the remaining grounds."
"Simply because the Order of Detention cannot be sustained on Ground No.6, it cannot be said that the Order of Detention cannot be sustained on Ground Nos.1 to 5. It cannot be that the Order of Detention has to go. Notwithstanding that the Order of Detention cannot stand on Ground No.6, it is still a valid Order on Ground Nos.1 to 5."
Decision and Implications
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, sustaining the detention order on Grounds 1 to 5 based on the severability provision. The judgment clarifies that while authorities must comply with the in all cases, the failure to do so on a single ground — among multiple independent grounds — cannot be exploited to nullify a detention order where Section 6 applies. The ruling carries significant weight for jurisprudence under the PIT NDPS Act, affirming statutory severability as a shield for multi-ground detention orders.
