IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Rajnish Bhatnagar, JJ.
Sharafat Sheikh @ Md. Ayub - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (Crl) 1213/2021
Decided On : 02-09-2022
Detention Order - Narcotics Trafficking - Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS) - Section 3(1), 9(f) - Summary: The court quashed the detention order dated 01.04.2021 and the order dated 15.06.2021 confirming the detention of the detenue for a period of one year under the PITNDPS. The court found that the detenue, an illiterate person, was not properly communicated the detention order and grounds in a language he understood, violating the constitutional mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized the necessity of furnishing the grounds of detention to the detenue in a language he understands, and held that the mere signing of documents in English does not automatically translate to the detenue having a working knowledge of English, thus quashing the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The detenue was apprehended for narcotics trafficking, and the impugned detention order was issued under the PITNDPS. The detenue, an illiterate person, argued that the detention order was not properly communicated to him in a language he understood, and that the grounds of detention were not effectively explained to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detenue was not properly communicated the detention order and grounds in a language he understood, violating the constitutional mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized the necessity of furnishing the grounds of detention to the detenue in a language he understands, and held that the mere signing of documents in English does not automatically translate to the detenue having a working knowledge of English.
Issues: The main issue was whether the detention order and grounds were effectively communicated to the detenue in a language he understood, as required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detenue, being illiterate, must have the grounds of detention explained to him in a language he understands, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The mere signing of documents in English does not fulfill the requirement of effective communication in a language known to the detenue.
Final Decision: The court quashed the detention order dated 01.04.2021 and the order dated 15.06.2021 confirming the detention of the detenue for a period of one year under the PITNDPS, as the detenue was not properly communicated the detention order and grounds in a language he understood, violating the constitutional mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been instituted for quashing; 1) the impugned detention order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India u/s 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS) and 2) the impugned Order dated 15.06.2021 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of India u/s 9(f) of the PITNDPS confirming the detention order for a period of one year along with supporting affidavit.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, on 23.07.2020, on the basis of specific information, the IGIS Crime Branch, Dwarka intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. DL 14 CE 7993 and two persons namely Md. Nasir Hussain S/o Taj Mohd. R/o H. No. 175, Nizam Nagar, Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi and Md. Rafiq @ Ibrahim @ Peerji (hereinafter 'Rafiq'), S/o Md. Hanif, R/o Village Botal Ganj, PS- Pipiya Mandi, Tehsil, Malharagh, Dist. Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh were apprehended and 3 kg Heroin was recovered from the bag from their possessions. Both the accused persons were arrested and the recovered heroin was seized under the NDPS Act, 1985. At the time of arrest accused Rafiq disclosed that the said contraband i.e. Heroin was procured by him from Village Baba Kheri, Distt. Mandsaur, M.P at the behest of Sharafat Sheikh (hereinafter 'the detenue'), S/o Sheikh Janul R/o G-13, 2nd Floor, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi. He further disclosed that the contraband was to be delivered by him to the detenue. On 21.08.2020 and 24.08.2020 statements of the detenue was recorded wherein he inter-alia, stated that he has completed his studies till the 8th standard and that, he is a permanent resident of Kishan Ganj. He had come to Delhi from his village in the year 1975 and after coming to Delhi, he has stated to have worked as a scrap dealer in the Nizamuddin area; and that, thereafter he started dealing in Smack and started earning huge amount of money. The detenue further stated that, till date in the cases of smack/theft, in the jurisdiction police station Nizamuddin and other police stations of Delhi, he has been arrested in 70-80 cases; and has taken many properties in the area of Kishan Ganj (Bihar), Delhi and Mumbai. In the past he was also caught by the police with Heroin and was subsequently imprisoned. In the year 2005, he was arrested under the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and his properties were seized by the Court.
3. After his release from the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 case, he was in the jail for a period of two months and after being released out from jail he again started the work of Smack, for which he contacted his old dealers of heroin and started to sell in the area of Nizamuddin. He also contacted his old supplier/known, namely, Rafiq, who is a R/o Village Botalganj, Police station Pipliya Mandi District Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, the detenue also met with his son namely, Washim Sheikh, and his cousin brother namely, Feroz Alam. In a period of one year, the detenue demanded heroine 30-40 times from the said Rafiq and purchased the heroin for an amount of Rs. l0 Lakhs per kilogram. Rafiq used to come to Delhi 3-4 times in a month and the detenue also took the heroin for Rafiq from Madhya Pradesh and during the said period, the detenue had talked with Rafiq on his mobile no. 8878047444 from his two different mobile numbers. The detenue took the supply of the heroin on 4th July, 8th July and 17th July from Rafiq at Dhuna Mazar in the Dhuna Guest House in the presence of his son Washim and brother Feroz. During the period of the lockdown, the detenue arranged an emergency pass of Ertiga Car No. DL-14CE-7993 for passing of car during the lockdown for continuing the supply, he also arranged the COVID Emergency Pass of Nasir Hussain and Rafiq amounting to Rs.15,300/- f
Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj vs. The State of Delhi
Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal
Haribandhu Dass vs. District Magistrate, Cuttack & Another
Huidrom Komungjao Singh vs. State of Manipur
Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs. Union of India & Ors.
Mohd. Yousuf Rather vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir
Nainmal Partap Mal Shah vs. Union Of India And Ors (1980) 4 SCC 427
Naresh Kr. Goyal vs. Union of India & Ors
Ram Lal Ratan Lal Anjana vs. Union of India
Sama Aruna vs. State of Telangana
State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande
State of Tamil Nadu vs. Nabila
Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok Jalan
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detenue, being illiterate, must have the grounds of detention explained to him in a language he understands, as mandated by Article 22(5) ....
Detention orders under preventive laws must communicate grounds in a language understood by the detainee; failure to do so violates constitutional rights under Article 22(5).
Preventive detention requires a clear link between past conduct and future risk; failure to communicate grounds in an understandable language violates constitutional rights.
The grounds for preventive detention must be communicated in a language the detenu understands to ensure the right to make effective representation, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
A detenu has a fundamental right under Article 22(5) that grounds on which a detention order has been made against him, be communicated to him as soon as may be and that he be afforded an opportunity....
(1) Preventive detention – There is subtle difference between background facts leading to detention order and grounds of detention – Effective knowledge qua a detenu is of utmost importance.(2) In a ....
Detention orders must communicate grounds in an understandable language and demonstrate legal compliance, particularly regarding the detenu's probable release on bail and overall threat assessment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.