Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, BUDI HABUNG
Mukesh Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nagaland, Through The Chief Secretary, Nagaland Kohima – Respondent
Judgment :
R. Phukan, J.
Heard Mr. Pokyim Yaden, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; and Mr. C. Phom, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Yanger Wati, learned CGSC for the respondent No. 3.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention order No. CON/PITNDPS/19/2025/226, dated 07.10.2025, passed by the Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Home Department (Political Branch), Nagaland, Kohima, along with other consequential/connected confirmation or extension orders; and also the order No. CON/PITNDPS/19/2025/249, dated 14.11.2025, passed by the Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, by which Shri Durg Singh is put under preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘PITNDPS Act’, for short).
Background Facts:-
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:
“On 12.06.2025, at 21:30 hours, during routing routine MVCP along NH2, between Khuzama and Viswema village area, at around 16:20 hours, one MVCP tea
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 cogent evidence and compliance with due process, including proper communication of grounds in a comprehensible language for the detenu.
Preventive detention requires a clear link between past conduct and future risk; failure to communicate grounds in an understandable language violates constitutional rights.
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 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.
Preventive detention – Preventive detention deprives a person of his/her individual liberties by detaining him/her for a length of time without being tried and convicted of a criminal offence and pre....
Preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act is justified based on subjective satisfaction of authorities, even if the detenue is in judicial custody, if there is a likelihood of future illicit activit....
Preventive detention orders must comply with constitutional safeguards, including the right to understand the grounds for detention in a comprehensible language.
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
