JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 04.11.2025 whereby she was detained under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short ‘1988 Act’) and order dated 20.01.2026 whereby her detention was confirmed by Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana.

2. The petitioner is a resident of District Faridabad. She was arrested in ten FIRs registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’). Detail of FIRs is as below:

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police on 16.08.2025 proposed detention of petitioner under 1988 Act. The proposal was approved on 04.11.2025. The petitioner was detained on 07.11.2025 and is in custody since then. During the pendency of instant petition, matter was referred to Advisory Board comprising three members. The Advisory Board vide its report dated 19.12.2025 confirmed her detention. The Board formed an opinion that sufficient cause is made out for preventive detention of Sanesh alias Sanera alias Shailesh. On the basis of report of Board, State Government has passed order dated 20.01.2026 whereby petitioner has been ordered to be detained for six months from the date of her detention. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner does not understand English, however, was supplied copy of detention order in English. The detention order was further supplied after more than two weeks from the date of detention. She was released on bail on 10.06.2025 and proposal for detention was forwarded on 16.08.2025. Order of detention was finally passed on 04.11.2025. Order of preventive detention is passed to snap live link and in the case of petitioner there was no live link still detention order was passed. The respondent did not point out propensity of petitioner’s involvement in illegal activities. In the absence of live link, the impugned order is bad in the eye of law. This Court in ‘Hari Om Versus State of Haryana and Others’, Law Finder Doc Id#2573761 has held that detention after three months from the date of proposal is bad in the eye of law.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner is a habitual offender. She was found involved in ten NDPS cases. Ten FIRs were registered against her within three years. She repeated offence after release on bail. As soon as she was released on bail, she repeated the offence. In such circumstances, Authorities found it appropriate to detain her under 1988 Act. The petitioner was released on bail on 10.06.2025 and proposal for her detention was forwarded on 16.08.2025. The proposing authority was jurisdictional DCP. Matter was put up before Director General of Police (DGP) who considered the record and forwarded the matter to Home Department. The order was finally passed by Home Department. In this process, a period of two and a half months was consumed. There was no delay on the part of respondent. The petitioner is a habitual offender and is repeatedly engaging herself in activities prohibited by NDPS Act. The Authorities under compelled circumstances, ordered to detain her. The Board has considered complete material on record and thereafter approved her detention. 6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. It is undisputed fact that preventive detention is a draconian step. It should be initiated in exceptional and compelled circumstances. Matter should not only be examined in the light of statutory provisions but also Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Preventive detention has remained subject matter of judicial discussion and pronouncement since independence.

8. A five-judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal & Ors, (1975) 3 SCC 198, has held that preventive detention has nothing to do with the commission of an offence by the detenue or any prosecution against