[PIT-NDPS Act] Threat To Public Health Ground For Detention If Authority Satisfied That Detenu Indulged In Illicit Drug Trafficking: JKL High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that merely because the detaining Authority among other grounds has also observed that the activities of the detenu pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people would not render the impugned order of detention under Section 3 of the PIT-NDPS Act illegal. Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that merely because the detaining Authority among other grounds has also observed that the activities of the detenu pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people would not render the impugned order of detention under Section 3 of the PIT-NDPS Act illegal.
Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 empowers the government to detain a person to prevent him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
The petitioner-detenu in this case had challenged an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, whereby the petitioner had been taken into preventive custody in terms of Section 3 on the ground that the activities of the petitioner pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people. It was argued that such a ground is alien to requirements of Section 3 of the PIT-NDPS Act.
Dismissing his petition, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,
"Merely, because the Detaining Authority has also observed that the activities of the petitioner pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people would not render the impugned order of detention illegal when it is clearly discernible from the contents of the impugned order of detention that the Detaining Authority has after recording subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is indulging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and that it is necessary to prevent him from doing so, passed impugned order of detention it cannot be said that the ground is alien to the provisions contained in Section 3 of the PIT NDPS Act"
The respondents contested the plea by submitting that the petitioner is a habitual drug peddler and smuggler who is indulging in illicit traffic of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Respondents further contended that the detenu poses a serious threat to the lives of young generation as well as to the economy of the Union Territory and has been found involved in numerous offences and various FIRs have been registered against the petitioner in District Jammu.
After considering the rival contentions on the matter, Justice Dhar observed that Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act is amply clear that an order of preventive detention under section 3 of the PITNDPS Act can be passed on the ground of preventing a person from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
While perusing the contents of the detention order the bench noted that the impugned order of detention shows that the Detaining Authority has observed that the petitioner is engaged in repeated cases of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people.
"It is clear that the Detaining Authority has spelt out in the order of detention that activities of the petitioner pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people as he is engaged in repeated illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and with a view to prevent him from doing so, the order of detention has been passed", the court said.
Answering the contention as to whether only two incidents of such nature were sufficient for the Detaining Authority to initiate proceedings for preventive detention is concerned, the court observed,
"Even one incident may be sufficient to satisfy the Detaining Authority. It all depends upon the nature of the incident".
The court observed that the Detaining Authority was fully satisfied that there was apprehension that the petitioner would indulge in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, in case he was allowed to remain free. The sufficiency of the material or the degree of probative criteria for satisfaction for the detention is the domain of the Detaining Authority and this Court cannot sit in appeal or exercise its powers of judicial review in this regard, it underscored.
The court accordingly could not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of detention and hence dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Tajinder Singh alias Happy Vs UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 22
Coram: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. K. S. Johal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Supreet Singh Johal, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy.AG