In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that preventive detention orders must reflect an independent application of mind by the detaining authority and cannot be passed mechanically based on police recommendations. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih, in Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland, quashed detention orders issued by the Nagaland government, emphasizing that a mere assertion of satisfaction without explicit, separate grounds for detention is legally inadequate.
The case arose from a narcotics seizure on April 5, 2024, when three individuals were apprehended in Khuzama village with 239 grams of heroin concealed in their vehicle. The subsequent investigation led to the arrest of two more individuals, Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang, on April 12, 2024. Despite being in judicial custody, the investigating officer recommended their preventive detention, arguing that they might engage in illicit activities upon release. The Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Nagaland, forwarded this proposal to the Special Secretary, Home Department, who issued detention orders without framing independent grounds.
The Supreme Court noted that the detenus were already in judicial custody when the detention orders were issued, and there was no evidence suggesting they had applied for bail. The authorities, however, assumed that they were likely to be released and re-offend, without providing any cogent material to support this inference. The Court reiterated that preventive detention cannot be justified solely on such assumptions. There must be concrete material establishing a real likelihood of release and the possibility of prejudicial activities post-release.
The judgment also highlighted serious procedural lapses. The detenus were served copies of their detention orders in English, a language they did not understand. While authorities claimed that the contents were explained orally in Nagamese, the Court held that oral explanations do not meet the constitutional mandate under Article 22(5), which requires effective communication of detention grounds.
Additionally, the Court found that the detaining authority had failed to formulate independent and distinct grounds for detention, violating Section 6 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. Instead, it had merely relied on police recommendations, which the Court deemed legally unsustainable. The absence of independent reasoning rendered the detention orders unlawful.
Setting aside the Gauhati High Court’s order upholding the detention, the Supreme Court directed the immediate release of the detenus. This ruling reinforces the principle that preventive detention must be exercised with due process and cannot be justified by vague references to police reports or administrative convenience.
