Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
ROBIN PHUKAN, BUDI HABUNG
Pooja Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nagaland, Represented By The Chief Secretary To The Govt. – Respondent
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 wi
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.
Preventive detention orders must comply with constitutional safeguards, including the right to understand the grounds for detention in a comprehensible language.
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....
The detention order was quashed due to violation of mandatory communication requirements, emphasizing the protection of personal liberty under Article 21.
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 live link between alleged activities and the detention order; unreasonable delays can invalidate such orders.
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
