Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988
Section 3(1)—Preventive detention—Refusal to quash order of detention by High Court—Appeal—Oral communication of grounds for detention doesn’t amount to adequate communication under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of Idnia—Authorities concerned paid mere lip service to mandatory requirements and mechanically went through the motions while dealing with the case of these two individuals—Proposals submitted by the IO noted the fact that both the detenus were arrested and they had not been released on bail—Reference was also made to their involvement in earlier cases—Material placed on record reflects that detaining authority did not even make separate grounds of detention but merely acted upon the proposals for detention—Section 3(1) of the 1988 Act also records that the authorized officer, be it of the Central Government or of a State Government, must be ‘satisfied’ that the person concerned required to be detained so as to prevent him/her from engaging in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances—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 any 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—High Court erred in the application of settled norms while testing the validity of the impugned detention orders—Common judgment passed by the High Court dismissing the two writ petitions is accordingly set aside and appeals are allowed.
[Paras 12 to 16]