SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(J&K) 150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
Priya Devi aka Priya @ Mani – Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Principal Secretary Home Department and ors. – Respondents
Decided On : 20-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG

The importance of subjective satisfaction in detention matters and the limitations of judicial review.

Headnote:

Detention Order - Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances - Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act, the definition of 'illicit traffic' under Section 2(c), and the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The court highlighted the importance of subjective satisfaction and the limitations of judicial review in detention matters.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, based on her repeated involvement in illicit drug trafficking. The petitioner challenged the detention order on grounds of procedural irregularities and lack of application of mind by the Detaining Authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the detention order did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. It upheld the detention based on the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction of the petitioner's involvement in illicit drug trafficking.

Issues: The issues included procedural irregularities, lack of application of mind by the Detaining Authority, and the petitioner's right to make representation against her detention.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of subjective satisfaction in detention matters and the limitations of judicial review. It held that the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction was not vitiated and upheld the detention based on the petitioner's repeated involvement in illicit drug trafficking.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the detention order was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

1. Impugned in this petition, filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, is an order of detention bearing No.PITNDPS-49 of 2023 dated 12.10.2023 [“impugned detention order?] passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu [“the Detaining Authority”] whereby the petitioner has been placed under detention with a view to preventing her from indulging in repeated “illicit trafficking” in narcotics and psychotropic substances.

2. The impugned order of detention has been passed by the Detaining Authority in the exercise of power vested in it under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [“the PITNDPS Act”]. The detention of the petitioner is ordered primarily on the ground that she has been, over the time, consistently engaged in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, in that, three FIRs i.e. (i) FIR No.364/2020 under 8/21/22 NDPS Act, (ii) FIR No.119/2022 under Section 8/21/22 NDPS Act, and (iii) FIR No.381/2023 under Section 8/21/22 NDPS Act stand registered in Police Station, Kathua and final reports in respect thereto have been submitted before the competent court of law after investigation.

3. On the basis of relevant material supplied by the District Police, the Detaining Authority arrived at subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is an incorrigible drug peddler and has been engaged in illicit trade of narcotics since the year 2020. She has been caught thrice in possession of illicit drugs and accordingly, FIRs were registered in the concerned Police Station. The Detaining Authority was aware that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in all the three cases registered against her but was of the opinion that in case the petitioner is allowed to remain at large and her illicit activities remain unchecked there is every likelihood that the petitioner would expand her illegal trade to other areas of the Union Territory and spoil the life of the youth of the area. It is on the basis of this satisfaction drawn by the Detaining Authority, impugned detention order was passed and the petitioner was taken into preventive custody of the State.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved and has assailed the impugned order of detention, inter alia, on the following grounds:-

    i) That the detention of the petitioner ordered by the Detaining Authority is dehors the procedure laid down in PITNDPS and in violation of the constitutional safeguards available to a detenue.

ii) That there is lack of application of mind by the Detaining Authority, in that, the Detaining Authority has not appreciated that the petitioner, though, involved in three FIRs for the commission of offence under NDPS Act was granted bail by the competent court of law despite the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act. The State was not aggrieved by the release of the petitioner on bail and because of this reason chose not to seek either cancellation of the bail or challenge the same before higher forum. Non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority to the relevant material vitiates the subjective satisfaction and consequently the order of detention.

iii) That the Detaining Authority did not provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner to make an effective representation. The communication of the Detaining Authority informing the petitioner of his right of making representation does not indicate the timeline within which such representation could have been made. This action on part of the Detaining Authority, it is submitted, violates the fundamental right guaranteed to the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India making the impugned order of detention liable to be quashed.

iv) That the Detaining Authority has also failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner was, though, involved in three different cases of illicit traffic of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, yet, the substantive law had adequately taken its course. Not only the pet

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top