The Supreme Court recently ruled that preventive detention orders must demonstrate 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 bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih held that a mere statement claiming the authority was “satisfied on examination of the proposals and supporting documents” is insufficient and fails to meet constitutional and statutory requirements.
The Court quashed the detention orders issued against two appellants by the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, finding that the detaining authority had not formulated independent grounds for detention but had instead relied solely on proposals forwarded by the police. The Court observed that such reliance was legally unsustainable, stating:
“The ‘satisfaction’ of the detaining authority must be explicitly demonstrated through separate grounds of detention, reflecting an independent application of mind. It cannot be inferred from a casual reference to the material placed before the authority or a vague statement that the authority was ‘satisfied on examination of the proposals and supporting documents.’”
The case arose from a challenge to detention orders issued under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The appellants argued that the orders lacked clear reasoning and were passed mechanically.
Background of the Case
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 in Khuzama village while traveling in a Mahindra TUV vehicle. A search of the vehicle revealed 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, alleging that she had previously supplied heroin and received payments for the same. Subsequently, Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang were arrested on April 12, 2024, in Dimapur and remanded to custody. Despite their detention, the investigating officer recommended preventive detention, arguing that their release could lead to continued involvement in illicit trafficking.
The Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Nagaland, forwarded the proposal to the Special Secretary, Home Department, who issued detention orders without framing independent grounds. Although the accused were granted bail by the trial court due to delays in filing the chargesheet, they remained incarcerated under the preventive detention orders. They challenged the orders in the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the detention, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court noted that the detenus were already in judicial custody when the detention orders were issued, and there was no evidence to suggest they had applied for bail. Despite this, the authorities assumed they were likely to be released and engage in illicit activities. The Court reiterated that preventive detention orders against individuals already in custody must be based on clear material indicating a genuine possibility of release and future prejudicial activities.
“There must be cogent material before the detaining authority to infer that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. Such an inference must be drawn from the material on record and cannot be based solely on the authority’s ipse dixit,” the Court emphasized.
Procedural Lapses
The Court also identified serious procedural lapses, including the fact that the detenus were served copies of their detention orders in English, a language they did not understand. While the authorities claimed that the contents were explained orally in Nagamese, the Court held that oral explanations did not satisfy the requirements of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which mandates effective communication of the grounds of detention.
Additionally, the Court found that the detaining authority had failed to formulate separate grounds of detention, violating Section 6 of the Act. This provision 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.
Outcome
The Supreme Court set aside the Gauhati High Court’s order upholding the detention and directed the immediate release of the detenus. The ruling underscores the necessity of ensuring that preventive detention orders are based on a thorough and independent application of mind, with clear and cogent grounds that comply with constitutional and statutory safeguards.
Conclusion
The judgment highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberties against arbitrary state action. By emphasizing the need for independent reasoning and procedural fairness in preventive detention cases, the Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and statutory requirements. This decision serves as a reminder to authorities to exercise their powers judiciously and with due regard for the rule of law.