Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
SUBHAS MEHLA
Lakhwinder Singh @ Bhindi – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. detention order challenges based on prior firs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petition has been filed for seeking quashing of the detention order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure- P6), under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, ‘PITNDPS Act’) and further seeking quashing of order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-7), under section 9 (f) read with Section 11 of the PITNDPS Act, vide which the detention order dated 02.05.2025 has been confirmed.
3. It is further contended that the impugned order of detention is in violation of Art
Preventive detention upheld when justified by habitual offending despite previous delays; statutory adherence and prompt actions of authorities emphasized.
Unreasonable delay in issuing a detention order undermines the validity of the order, severing the necessary link between grounds for detention and its purpose.
Undue delay in passing a detention order under the PITNDPS Act can sever the necessary link between the preventive measure and the alleged ongoing threat.
The court reaffirmed that while delays in detention orders must be scrutinized, reasonable delays do not automatically invalidate such orders under the PITNDPS Act.
A detention order must be timely, ensuring a direct connection between recent activities and its necessity; undue delay can invalidate such orders.
Undue delay in execution of detention orders can invalidate them, breaking the live link necessary for lawful detention.
The court affirmed that preventive detention orders must demonstrate urgency, avoid mechanical application, and assess sufficiency of bail conditions based on individual circumstances.
The detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 can be quashed if it is found to be vitiated by non-application of mind, non-consid....
Detention under the PITNDPS Act requires timely action, but minor delays may be justified depending on circumstances surrounding each case.
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
Listen Article