Preventive detention requires cogent evidence and compliance with due process, including proper communication of grounds in a comprehensible language for the detenu.

Judgment :

R. Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. P. Surien, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3; and Mr. C. Phom, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Yangerwati, learned CGSC for the respondent No. 4.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus to quash and set aside the Detention Order, dated 30.05.2025, passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, vide No. CON/PITNDPS/14/2025/139 and Confirmation Order, dated 02.09.2025, passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland/State Government, vide No. CON/PITNDPS/14/2025/205, by which the detenu, namely Mukesh Kumar Sharma, is put under preventive detention, under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS herein after) Act, 1988.

Background Facts:-

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are adumbrated herein below:-

“On 26.04.2025, the Officer In-charge of Sub-Urban (SBN) PS, had recorded a GD Entry, No. 06/2025 and instructed the complainant, Special Branch (INT), to lead a team along with SBN PS personnel and to proceed to the place, to conduct a surveillance to nab the drug peddler.

Accordingly, a source was deployed to act as a customer and when the said source successfully purchased the contraband drugs, the suspected area/apartment was searched and during the search, the alleged contraband drugs were recovered from the staircase of the apartment/building and accordingly, the petitioner/detenu, namely Mukesh Kumar Sharma, was apprehended.

Thereafter, the complainant lodged a written FIR with the SBN PS, upon which, Sub-Urban PS Case No. 0022/2025, under Section 22 (c) of the NDPS Act, had been registered and the petitioner/detenu was forwarded to the judicial custody.

Thereafter, a proposal for detention of the petitioner/detenu was made to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Dimapur, by the Investigating Officer of the case, vide letter dated nil, for detaining the petitioner/detenu, under PITNDPS Act, 1988. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Dimapur had written a letter to the Superintendent of Police (Org. Crime), PHQ Kohima, Nagaland, for detention of the petitioner/detenu, vide letter dated 12.05.2025. Thereafter, the Additional Director General of Police (L&O) had written a letter on 22.05.2025, to the Special Secretary (Home) to the Government of Nagaland for detention of the petitioner/detenu. Accordingly, the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland had passed an order for detention of the petitioner/detenu for a period of 3 (three) months, under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, vide impugned Detention Order, dated 30.05.2025.

Thereafter, the petitioner/detenu had preferred a representation, dated 12.06.2025, before the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland for revoking the said Detention order, dated 30.05.2025. But, the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, had rejected the said representation, vide order dated 13.06.2025 and consequently, the State Government had also rejected the said representation, in pursuance to the said order, dated 13.06.2025, vide order dated 17.06.2025, on the ground that the authority had found no valid grounds for revocation the said detention order, dated 30.05.2025.

Thereafter, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland/State Government had confirmed the detention order of the petitioner/detenu, vide impugned Confirmation order dated 02.09.2025.”

Being aggriev