Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH), KOHIMA BENCH
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Esther Zhoh, D/o Shri Lt. Hriini – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nagaland – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Y. Longkumer, J.
Heard learned counsel, Mr. Alemwapang Ao along with learned counsel Ms. Y.S. Phom for the petitioner, Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the Central Government.
2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to quash and set aside the detention order bearing No. CON/PITNDPS/35/2024/225 dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PITNDPS Act for short) detaining the detenue under the said act. The petitioner has also assailed the Confirmation Order No. CON/PITNCPS/35/2024/184 dated 12.03.2025 by which the State Government, pursuant to the opinion of the Advisory Board, confirmed the detention order dated 12.12.2024 and further extended the detention order with effect from 12.03.2025 till 12.06.2025.
3. The petitioner is the sister of the detenue, who is presently detained under the PITNDPS Act and lodged at
Preventive detention orders must comply with constitutional safeguards, including the right to understand the grounds for detention in a comprehensible language.
Preventive detention requires cogent evidence and compliance with due process, including proper communication of grounds in a comprehensible language for the detenu.
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.
Preventive detention requires a clear link between past conduct and future risk; failure to communicate grounds in an understandable language violates constitutional rights.
Preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act is justified if the detaining authority reasonably believes the individual poses a threat to public safety, even if they are already in judicial custody.
The detention order must be supported by sufficient grounds, and the disposals of the representation must be within a reasonable time and in accordance with the law.
The detention order was quashed due to violation of mandatory communication requirements, emphasizing the protection of personal liberty under Article 21.
The court ruled that detention orders must provide specific grounds and materials justifying detention, especially for individuals already in custody, to uphold constitutional rights.
Detention orders must provide specific grounds and cogent materials; failure to do so violates constitutional rights and renders the order illegal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
