IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAHUL BHARTI, J.
Anoop Sharma through Bimla Devi – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K and Ors. - Respondents
WP(Crl) No.87 of 2022
Decided on : 04-08-2023
Preventive Detention - Personal Liberty - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - PIT NDPS Act, 1988 - [Section 8/21/22/25 NDPS Act, 1985, Section 8/21/22/27 NDPS Act, 1985, Section 8/21/22 NDPS Act, 1985, Section 8/21/22 NDPS Act, 1985, Section 8/21/22/60 NDPS Act]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act, 1988) based on five FIRs under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act, 1985). The detention was challenged on the grounds of procedural irregularities and lack of evidence supporting the detention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the procedural aspect of the preventive detention was compromised, and the detention order was quashed. The petitioner was directed to be restored to his personal liberty.
Issues: Procedural irregularities in the preventive detention, lack of evidence supporting the detention, and violation of personal liberty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention, citing various judgments that highlighted the need for minimal restrictions and fair procedures. It concluded that the procedural aspect attending the preventive detention of the petitioner was seriously compromised, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
Final Decision: The detention order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be restored to his personal liberty.
JUDGMENT :
1. Personal liberty of a person known and recognized as a fundamental right is self-inhering right the enjoyment of which by a person is guaranteed and guarded by none other than the Constitution of India. Thus, something which the Constitution of India itself guarantees and guards cannot be allowed to be fiddled with by an entity i.e. the State and its authorities which function under the aegis of the Constitution of India, except by following the strict regime of law under which such fundamental right of a person can be impinged, curtailed or restricted. Preventive detention jurisdiction is one of such laws.
2. Preventive detention jurisdiction is, thus, a subject to be handled with care and caution envisaging and expecting legal maturity of the trustees entrusted with the authority to exercise the jurisdiction which is eventually meant to end in depriving a citizen of his personal liberty by reference to his potentiality rather than actuality for acts endangering the society and the State. Stakes of far reaching effects are envisaged and involved in each and every case of preventive detention both from the point of view of the State and the society and also the person facing/suffering preventive detention.
3. The preventive detention of a person is a safety serving for the State and the society. To carry out a preventive detention of a person, there are non-negotiable procedural checkmates and check-points which if ignored, by design or default, by a public authority/officials acting on behalf of the State, in detaining a person under preventive detention jurisdiction, then there is no scope for expecting a judicial diplomacy from a Constitutional Court to provide a let off to the wrong/omission/error attending preventive detention of a person. Lost personal liberty of such a person is to be restored even if the subjective satisfaction to detain a person in itself may be justifiable. The present case is one where the check-points have been punctured in effecting the preventive detention of the petitioner who has come asking to restore the snatched personal liberty.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu (in short “SSP, Jammu”), upon the basis of fact that the petitioner was found involved on five occasions at different points of time in the alleged commission of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “NDPS Act, 1985”), had considered the petitioner to be a fit case to suffer deprivation of his personal liberty in order to check his further indulgences in activities as may amount to offences under the NDPS Act, 1985.
5. The SSP Jammu compiled a dossier with respect to the petitioner bearing alleged facts upon the basis of which the case for preventive detention of the petitioner curtailing his personal liberty under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in short “PIT NDPS Act, 1988”) was allegedly made out to be presented before the authority vested with the power to order preventive detention. It is this act of the SSP Jammu which resulted in preventive detention of the petitioner who has now come forward to impugn his preventive detention order terming it to be illegal and unconstitutional.
6. The chronology of the case relates back to booking of the petitioner in FIR no. 225/2017 with the Police Station Satwari, Jammu that being the first FIR for alleged acts of commission of offences under the NDPS Act, 1985 on the part of the petitioner and the last being FIR no. 79/2022 with the Police Station Satwari, Jammu under the NDPS Act, 1985.
7. The SSP, Jammu came to compile and submit a Dossier no.CRB/Dossier/2022/13/DPOJ dated 22.09.2022 to the respondent no. 2- Divisional Commissioner, Jammu urging thereby that the petitioner is a part of vicious network of drug traffickers and dealers who is involved in vari
Francis Coralie Mullin Vs Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and others
Nand Lal Bajaj Vs State of Punjab and another
Rekha Vs State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another
The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention and highlights the need for fair and just procedures, minimal restrictions, and the protection of personal libe....
The judgment established the importance of fair and just procedures in preventive detention cases, emphasizing the need for minimal restrictions and meticulous compliance with procedural safeguards. ....
Point of Law : The detenu has a right, under Article 22(5), to be furnished with particulars of grounds of his detention, sufficient to enable him to make a representation, which on being considered ....
Preventive detention orders must strictly adhere to constitutional safeguards, including valid grounds for detention; reliance on previously quashed grounds is impermissible.
Preventive detention requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards; non-compliance leads to quashing of detention orders.
Preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act was found illegal due to lack of substantive grounds and procedural violations, emphasizing the protection of personal liberty.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.