Amardeep Singh Narang vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The Petitioner, Amardeep Singh Narang, challenged preventive detention orders dated November 29, 2023, and February 19, 2024, issued under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). These orders, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, ordered his detention for one year from December 1, 2023. The detention was based on his alleged involvement in three cases registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) involving seizures of Tramadol tablets and cough syrups. The Sponsoring Authority (NCB) submitted a proposal for detention on September 12, 2023, which was approved by the Screening Committee. The detention order was served on December 1, 2023, along with grounds of detention and relied upon documents. The Central Advisory Board confirmed the detention. The Petitioner was already in custody since December 23, 2020, and was granted bail in one of the cases on August 3, 2023, prior to the detention proposal.

Held

The Court held that the preventive detention orders dated November 29, 2023, and February 19, 2024, were liable to be quashed. The primary reason for this decision was the absence of a live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities of the Petitioner and the passing of the detention order. The Court noted that the Petitioner had been in custody since December 23, 2020, and was granted bail in one of the predicate offenses on August 3, 2023. Despite this, the proposal for preventive detention was moved by the Sponsoring Authority only after the Petitioner was granted bail. The Court found no explanation in the detention order for the necessity of passing it after nearly three years of incarceration. Citing established legal principles, the Court emphasized that preventive detention is a serious curtailment of personal liberty and requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards and a demonstrable nexus between the alleged activities and the need for detention. The Court concluded that the detention order was passed without a live link, rendering it invalid. The detention orders were set aside, and the petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the preventive detention order dated November 29, 2023, and its confirmation order dated February 19, 2024, are liable to be quashed on the ground that there is no live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities of the Petitioner and the passing of the detention order, particularly in light of the Petitioner being in custody since December 23, 2020, and having been granted bail in one of the predicate offenses on August 3, 2023. Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the detention order was vitiated by a lack of live and proximate link between the alleged activities and the order of detention. He argued that the detaining authority failed to explain the necessity of preventive detention when the Petitioner was already in custody for nearly three years and had been granted bail in one of the cases. The Petitioner relied on the principle that preventive detention can only be resorted to when there is a real and proximate threat to public order or security, and such a threat cannot exist when the individual is already incarcerated. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the Revenue or the State. However, the issuance of the detention orders and their confirmation by the Advisory Board suggest the Revenue's position was that the detention was justified based on the Petitioner's alleged involvement in illicit drug trafficking.