Detaining authority must spell out separate grounds for preventive detention: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that preventive detention orders must reflect an independent application of mind by the detaining authority and cannot be based on a casual reference to the material placed before it [Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland].A mere statement that the authority was “satisfied on examination of the proposals and supporting documents” is insufficient and does not meet constitutional or statutory requirements, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih held..The Court quashed the detention orders issued against two of the appellants before it by the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland. It found that the detaining authority had not framed independent grounds of detention but had merely relied on proposals forwarded by the police. Holding this approach to be legally unsustainable, the Court observed,“Such ‘satisfaction’ of the detaining authority necessarily has to be spelt out after application of mind by way of separate grounds of detention made by the detaining authority itself and cannot be by inference from a casual reference to the material placed before such detaining authority or a bald recital to the effect that the detaining authority was ‘satisfied on examination of the proposals and supporting documents’ that the detention of the individuals concerned was necessary.”.The ruling came in a case where detention orders under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, were challenged on the ground that they lacked clear reasoning and were passed mechanically.The case originated from a narcotics seizure on April 5, 2024, when three individuals—Nehkhoi Guite (driver), Hoinu @ Vahboi, and Chinneilhing Haokip @ Neopi—were apprehended at Khuzama village while traveling in a Mahindra TUV vehicle. A search of the vehicle led to the discovery of 239 grams of heroin concealed in 20 soap cases inside the gear lever cover. A case was registered against them under Sections 22(b) and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.During interrogation, Chinneilhing Haokip @ Neopi implicated Adaliu Chawang, stating that she had previously supplied heroin and received payments for the same. Following this, Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang were arrested on April 12, 2024, in Dimapur and remanded to custody. However, despite their detention, the investigating officer recommended preventive detention, arguing that if released, they might continue engaging in illicit trafficking. The Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Nagaland, forwarded this proposal to the Special Secretary, Home Department, who then issued detention orders without framing independent reasons. The accused were eventually enlarged on bail by the trial court owing to delay in filing of chargesheet, yet they remained incarcerated because of the detention orders. They challenged the detention orders in the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the detention leading the accused to approach the Supreme Court. .The top court noted that the detenus were already in judicial custody when the orders were passed, and there was no material to suggest that they had applied for bail. Despite this, the authorities assumed that they were likely to be released and engage in illicit activities.It reiterated that preventive detention orders against persons already in custody must be based on clear material indicating a real possibility of release and future prejudicial activities.“There must be cogent material before the officer passing the detention order to infer that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, and such an inference must be drawn from the material on record and must not be the ipse dixit of the officer passing such an order,” the Court opined..The Court also found serious procedural lapses, including the fact that the detenus were served copies of their detention orders in English, a language they did not understand. The authorities claimed that the contents were explained orally in Nagamese, but the Court stated that oral explanations did not fulfill Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which mandates effective communication of detention grounds.Further, the Court observed that the detaining authority had not formulated separate grounds of detention, violating Section 6 of the Act, which requires that detention orders be based on distinct and self-contained grounds. The authority’s failure to record its independent satisfaction rendered the detention unlawful.The Gauhati High Court’s order upholding the detention was set aside, and the Supreme Court directed the immediate release of the detenus..The Appellants were represented by Advocate Ms. Madiya Mushtaq along with AoR Mr. Pranjal Kishore. The Respodents including the State were represented by Additional Solicitor General Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Senior Advocate Mr. KN Balgopal, along with Advocates Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Mr. Prang Newmai, Mr. Vitso Rio, Ms. Nitya Nambiar, Mr. Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Ms. Satvika Thakur, Ms. Yogya Rajpurohit, Mr. Aayush Saklani, Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Ms. Nikita Capoor, with Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AoR..[Read Judgment]