2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 77108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J
Dishant Goel – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
CWP-22223-2023

Preventive detention must rely upon proximate, live material; unexplained administrative delay, non-supply of foundational documents, and the use of detention as a punitive substitute for regular bail procedures without exhausting ordinary legal remedies renders the detention order a violation of fundamental constitutional safeguards.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 - Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Sections 3(1), 3(3), 9 and 11 - Preventive detention - Challenge to detention order - Constitutional safeguards - Obligation of detaining authority to furnish foundational documents - Non-supply of detention proposal - Right to effective representation - The right under Article 22(5) is a substantive protection; non-supply of a foundational document like the detention proposal, which triggers the detention process, deprives the detenue of an effective opportunity to represent. (Paras 13, 14, 64-67, 76)

(B) Preventive Detention - Live and proximate link - Need for immediacy - Delay in passing/executing detention order - Preventive detention must be based on current, proximate material; unreasonable delay between initiation of proposal and execution of the detention order snaps the 'live and proximate link' between the alleged activity and the detention, rendering the order punitive rather than preventive. (Paras 9, 10, 51, 53-56, 61)

(C) Preventive Detention - Use as substitute for ordinary criminal law - Doctrine of proportionality - Resort to detention in absence of exhaustion of alternative legal remedies - Preventive detention is an extraordinary measure not to be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law or to override bail granted by competent courts; absence of misuse of liberty or threat to public order renders the order arbitrary and punitive. (Paras 23, 79, 81, 90)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained under the Act following a series of FIRs related to narcotic offenses. The petitioner challenged the detention order, citing inordinate delay between the proposal and the execution, non-supply of the detention proposal to the detenue, and the fact that the detention order was passed after the petitioner had already secured bail in criminal proceedings without any specific allegations of misuse of liberty.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the authorities failed to explain the prolonged delay, which severed the 'live and proximate link' essential for preventive detention. Furthermore, the failure to provide the initial detention proposal violated Article 22(5). The court also observed that the detention was utilized as a punitive measure to override regular bail orders without demonstrating a failure of ordinary criminal legal remedies.

Issues: Whether the delay in passing the detention order snapped the 'live and proximate link'; whether the non-supply of the detention proposal violated Article 22(5); and whether the invocation of preventive detention was an arbitrary, punitive measure used to circumvent regular criminal law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that constitutional safeguards in preventive detention must be strictly construed. The lapse of time between the proposal and detention along with the denial of foundational documents constitutes a breach of the fundamental right to liberty and effective representation, rendering the order invalid.

Result: Petition allowed; detention order quashed.