Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1527
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MANISH CHOUDHURY, JJ.
Md. Selim Faraji, S/o Abdul Kuddus Faraji - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) no. 14 of 2025
Decided on : 11.09.2025
For the Appellant :Mr. P.R. Sarma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. K.K. Parasar, Central Government Counsel Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate, Assam
Preventive detention must respect constitutional rights; failure to provide grounds in an understandable language violates Article 22(5), rendering detention invalid.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 and Article 22(5) - Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Sections 3 and 9 - Preventive detention of Md. Selim Faraji was challenged on grounds of violation of rights; detenu was not provided with documents in a language he understood, inhibiting effective representation. Court found procedural defects made detention unconstitutional. (Paras 10, 53, 55).
(B) Rights of Detenu - Communication of grounds of detention must be comprehensible to the detenu; failure to provide documents in an understandable language constitutes a breach of constitutional rights. (Paras 51-53).
(C) Delays in Detention Order - Unexplained delays between last prejudice and detention order undermine the satisfaction of Detaining Authority, rendering the order invalid. (Paras 34-35).
Facts of the case:
Md. Selim Faraji was detained on 22.01.2025 under the PIT-NDPS Act for alleged repeated offenses related to narcotics, with procedural issues raised regarding language and communication of grounds of detention.
Findings of Court:
The detention order and confirmation were quashed for violations concerning the detenu’s rights and due process.
Issues: Do violations of Article 22(5) and procedural irregularities undermine the validity of the detention order?
Ratio Decidendi: The failure to provide understandable documentation breaches constitutional safeguards; unexplained delays in the process break the necessary causal link for detention.
Result: Writ petition allowed; detenu released immediately if not under another detention.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition against preventive detention order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legality of the detention. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. analysis of the pit-ndps act provisions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. procedural safeguards under the constitution. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. requirements for effective communication with the detenu. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. details of previous cases against the detenu. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. delays in issuing the detention order. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. impact of delays on the detention's validity. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 9. failure to comply with procedural safeguards. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 10. rights of the detenu to make representations. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 11. obligations of the government regarding representation. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 12. deliberation on government powers and duties. (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 13. consideration of representation by the authorities. (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 14. language requirements for communication with the detenu. (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 15. conclusion on the validity of the detention order. (Para 53 , 54) |
| 16. detention order quashed. (Para 55) |
| 17. release order for the detenu. (Para 56) |
| 18. returning of records. (Para 57) |
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the father on behalf of the detenu, Md. Selim Faraji [hereinafter also referred as ‘the detenu’, at places, for easy reference], who has been detained in the Central Jail, Nagaon pursuant to a Detention Order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home & Political Department as the Detaining Authority in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section [1] of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [‘the PIT-NDPS Act’, for short]. By the impugned Detention Order dated 22.01.2025, the detenu who has been named therein as Selim Uddin @ Faraji, had been detained until further order.
2. Subsequent to issuance of the Detention Order dated 22.01.2025, the detenu was served with the Detention Order dated 22.01.2025 along with the Grounds of Detention, which were prepared vide no. eCF-580610/128 dated 22.01.2025, on 30.01.2025.
3. On being served with the Detention Order and the Grounds of Detention, both dated 22.01.2025, along with the other supporting materials, on 30.01.2025, the detenu preferred a Representation each, on 13.02.2025, before [i] the State Government of Assam in the Home & Political Department; [ii] the Detaining Authority under the PIT-NDPS Act & the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home & Political Department; [iii] the Advisory Board, PIT-NDPS Act; and [iv] the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue.
4. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board vide Reference no. eCF-580610/224 dated 13.02.2025. During one of the sittings of the Advisory Board on 01.03.2025, the detenu was produced before the Advisory Board by the Detaining Authority from the Central Jail, Nagaon and the Advisory Board heard the detenu in person. The Advisory Board recorded its opinion in an Order no. PITNDPS/1/2025 on 11.03.2025.
5. On the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board forwarded on 11.03.2025, the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 [f] of the PIT-NDPS Act, had confirmed the Detention Order dated 22.01.2025 vide its Order bearing no. eCF-580610/263 dated 29.03.2025 for a period of one year from the date of detention.
7. Vide a Memorandum bearing no. F.No. U-11013/19/2025-PITNDPS dated 03.04.2025, Department of Revenue, PITNDPS Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India which was issued under the hand of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, the Representation preferred by the detenu before the Central Government seeking revocation of the Detention Order dated 22.01.2025 came to be rejected.
8. We have heard Mr. P.R. Sarma, learned counsel for the
