news details |
|
|
| HC strikes down PIT-NDPS detentions, raps authorities for 'Non-Application of Mind' | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 9: In a significant ruling, Justice Sanjay Dhar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Jammu has quashed two preventive detention orders passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, holding that the detaining authority acted with "total non-application of mind" and for an objective alien to the purpose of the law..
In the first case, Mahavir Singh alias Appu had challenged Order No. PITNDPS 40 of 2025 dated 27.06.2025, while in the second, Mohd. Arif assailed Order No. PITNDPS 41 of 2025 dated 04.07.2025, both issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu under Section 3(1) of the PIT-NDPS Act. The Court noted that both petitioners had questioned the detention orders on the ground that they were passed without proper application of mind and for reasons beyond the scope of the statute.
The High Court observed that in the grounds of detention, the authorities had referred not only to alleged illicit drug trafficking but also to the need to maintain "public order, peace and tranquility." Justice Dhar held that such language showed uncertainty on the part of the detaining authority about the true nature of the activities attributed to the detenues. The Court made it clear that a person cannot be detained under the PIT-NDPS Act for acts prejudicial to maintenance of public order, and that such detention is permissible only when the acts fall within illicit trafficking as contemplated under the law.
The Court further found a serious flaw in the conclusion recorded by the detaining authority that detention was necessary to prevent the petitioners from committing "any offence under PITNDPS Act." Justice Dhar pointed out that the PIT-NDPS Act does not define any offence and is meant only to provide for preventive detention in cases involving illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The Court held that this itself demonstrated total non-application of mind, rendering the impugned detention orders legally unsustainable.
Allowing both petitions, the High Court quashed the detention orders and directed the respondents to set the petitioners at liberty forthwith, provided they were not required in any other case.
(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
