‘Drug problem leaving deleterious effect on national economy’
Upholds detention of narco trafficker under PIT-NDPSA
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Aug 31: Stating that drug problem is posing serious threat to the health and welfare of the people and leaving deleterious effect on the national economy as well, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that safety and security of the nation has to be given importance over liberty of an individual while ordering preventive detention under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (PIT-NDPSA), 1988.
Moreover, the High Court has made it clear that pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention and court cannot substitute its opinion for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and interfere with the order of detention as a matter of routine.
These observations of far-reaching consequences have been made by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal while upholding the order of detention passed against a resident of Kupurthala, Punjab by the Joint Secretary, Union Ministry of Finance under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner (detenue) that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the order impugned against the detenue as he was behind the bars for the last more than 10 months and lodged in District Jail, Amphalla.
“Since the petitioner was already in custody with respect to the criminal cases registered against him in two FIRs, therefore, in absence of recording subjective satisfaction that the detenue is likely to be released on bail, the detention order has been passed”, Advocate Ashish Sharma appearing for the detenue submitted.
However, Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) Vishal Sharma argued that impugned detention order has been passed by the detaining authority after arriving at subjective satisfaction that the detenue is a threat to the health and welfare of the nation and his activities are continuous in nature.
“It has been established beyond any shadow of doubt that there was a high propensity and inclusion of the detenue to engage in such pre-judicial activities, if enlarged on bail as application in this regard is pending disposal in the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu”, DSGI submitted.
After hearing rival contentions of the parties, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “it is discernible from the grounds of detention that the detenue was involved in trafficking of 52.424 Kgs of heroin and was also caught in possession of 100 grams of heroin”, adding “it is also mentioned in the grounds of detention that the detenue was actively involved in trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and as such his activities are detrimental to the society”.
Observing that drug problem is a serious threat to public health, safety and well-being of humanity, High Court said, “drug trafficking along with drug abuse, especially by younger generation has continued its significant toll on valuable human lives and productive years of many persons around the globe”, adding “in recent years, India has been facing a problem of transit traffic in illicit drugs. The illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances poses serious threat to the health and welfare of the people and activities of persons engaged in such illicit traffic have a deleterious effect on the national economy as well”.
High Court further said, “the object of the law of preventive detention is not punitive, but is only preventive. The justification of such detention is suspicion and reasonability. Preventive detention, an anticipatory measure, is resorted to when the executive is convinced that such detention is necessary to prevent a person detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects which are specified by the law”, adding “an order of preventive detention may be made before or during prosecution. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention”.
“This court is conscious of the fact that the Constitution and the Supreme Court are very zealous of upholding the personal liberty of an individual. But the liberty of an individual has to be subordinated within reasonable bounds to the good of the people”, Justice Nargal said, adding “order of detention is clearly a preventive measure and devised to afford protection to the society. When the preventive detention is aimed to protect the safety and security of the nation, balance has to be struck between liberty of an individual and the needs of the society”.
Stating that the court must be conscious that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is “subjective” in nature and the court cannot substitute its opinion for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and interfere with the order of detention, High Court said, “it does not mean that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is immune from judicial reviewability”, adding “detention order in the present case has been passed by the detaining authority after following the due procedure prescribed under law, as such, the impugned order is not to be afflicted with any legal malady”.
With these observations, High Court dismissed the petition of detenue and upheld the impugned order of detention.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
