2025:HHC:25480 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 10001 of 2025 Reserved on : 17.07.2025 Decided on : 31.07.2025 Jaspal Singh. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioners : Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) To issue writ of habeas corpus thereby directing the respondents to release the petitioner from illegal detention made pursuant to the impugned order of preventive detention dated 6.5.2025 Annexure P-1. (b) To pass appropriate order, direction or writ thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order of 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:25480 preventive detention dated 6.5.2025, Annexure P-1, passed under Section 3(1) of Prévention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, in view of the submissions made hereinabove, in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of order dated 06.05.2025, passed by Additional Chief Secretary (Home), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’), preventive detention of the petitioner has been ordered, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that there is a complete violation of the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, as neither the grounds of detention were made available to the petitioner nor any opportunity of making a representation against the impugned order, was given to him. On these counts, the quashing of impugned order has been sought. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that simply because certain cases were registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act, in none of which, he 3 2025:HHC:25480 as of now, has been convicted, there was no occasion for the Authorities to order his preventive detention. He submitted that the exercise of power in this regard by the Authorities was totally unwarranted and there was no occasion for the issuance of impugned order and otherwise also, the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as neither the grounds of detention were made available to the petitioner nor any opportunity was granted to him to make any representation against the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, by relying upon the reply filed by the respondents submitted that there are two cases registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act in the year 2024 which are under trial. One case was registered on 26.06.2024 and the other case was registered on 28.07.2024, details whereof are provided in the reply. He submitted that the petitioner was arrested two times under the NDPS Act and thereafter also, he has not stopped the illicit trafficking of Narcotic Drugs, which clearly manifested that he was a habitual drug trafficker. He further stated that the interrogation of the accused, as was 4 2025:HHC:25480 reported by the Investigation Officer, demonstrated that he was involved in the sale of Charas and Heroin and information gathered over a period of time demonstrated that whenever he was released on bail, he influenced witnesses and also indulged in peddling of Narcotic circumstances. He further submitted that source report revealed that the petitioner was presently involved in illicit trafficking of Poppy Husk, Heroin and Charas and was supplying the same to the students of schools, colleges and other educational institutions and it is in these circumstances that the order of preventive detention was passed. 5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the documents appended with the petition. 6. The order of preventive detention dated 06.05.2025, is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1 and perusal thereof demonstrates that it was mentioned therein that two FIRs were registered against the petitioner under the provisions of NDPS Act. The petitioner was dealing in Narcotic Drugs for 5 2025:HHC:25480 quite some time and he was also a drug peddler as well as drug smuggler and his activities were having ill-effect upon the society. It was also mentioned in the order that as per the source report, the petitioner was continuing his activities even after his release on bail and secret reports and source reports generated by the Field Unit of Police Station Baddi, demonstrated that the petitioner was actively involved in drug trafficking. On these basis, the impugned order has been passed. 7. This Court is of the considered view that the reasons as to why the detention order was passed, stand reflected in the order of detention and, therefore, it cannot be said that the grounds of detention have not been spelled out in the order of detention. The contention of learned Senior Counsel that each and every word or detail or the secret information or source report etc., should have been appended with the detention order, does not impress the Court. Informing the detenue about the grounds of detention obviously means that the order of detention should not be vague and it should spell out the reasons/grounds on the basis of which it has been 6 2025:HHC:25480 passed by the Authority. If the impugned order contains the same, then it cannot be said that the same is bad, for the reason that it does not contains the grounds of detention. 8. Of course, this Court is not suggesting that a detenue does not has a right to assail the order of detention. If according to him, the reasons which have been given in the detention order, are per se bad, he can obviously challenge that, but such an order then has to be assailed on the basis of the reasons/grounds mentioned therein. However, said order cannot be allowed to be assailed on the ground that it does not discloses the grounds of detention. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Mortuza Hussain Choudhary Vs. The State of Nagaland and others, 2025 INSC 321, has been pleased to hold that preventive detention is a draconian measure whereby a person who has not been tried and convicted under a penal law can be detained and confined for a determinate period of time so as to curtail that person's anticipated criminal activities. This extreme mechanism is, however, sanctioned by Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India. Significantly, Article 22 also provides stringent norms to 7 2025:HHC:25480 be adhered to while effecting preventive detention. Further, Article 22 speaks of the Parliament making law prescribing the conditions and modalities relating to preventive detention. The Act of 1988 is one such law which was promulgated by the Parliament authorizing preventive detention so as to curb illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Needless to state, as preventive detention deprives a person of his/her individual liberties by detaining him/her for a length of time without being tried and convicted of a criminal offence, the prescribed safeguards must be strictly observed to ensure due compliance with constitutional and statutory norms and requirements. In Para 7 of the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to further hold as under:- “7. It would be apposite at this stage to take note of the statutory regime of the Act of 1988. Section 3(1) thereof empowers the authorized officers, either of the Central Government or of a State Government, to detain any person with a view to prevent him/her from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Section 3(2) requires a State Government that passes such a detention order to forward a report of 8 2025:HHC:25480 the same to the Central Government within ten days. Section 3(3) mandates communication of the grounds on which the detention order has been made to the detenu as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days from the date of detention. The sub-section records that this requirement is for the purposes of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which mandates such communication as soon as may be. Section 6 of the Act of 1988 provides that the grounds of detention are severable and an order of detention shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is either found to be vague, non-existent, irrelevant or not connected with such persons or is invalid for any other reason. Section 6 specifically records that where a person has been detained pursuant to an order of detention under Section 3(1), which has been made on two or more grounds, such order shall be deemed to have been made separately on each ground. This indicates that the order of detention must be accompanied by the 'grounds of detention' made by the detaining authority itself. Section 11 of the Act of 1988 9 2025:HHC:25480 speaks of the maximum period of detention and states that the same may be extended up to 2 (two) years from the date of detention.” 10. Coming to the facts of this case, during the course of arguments, it could not be demonstrated that any of the statutory provisions of the Act under which the detention orders have been passed, has been violated. It is a matter of record that two FIRs stand registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the NDPS Act and he is out on bail in the said two FIRs. In fact, it is also a matter of record that the second FIR was registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act when he already was on bail in the earlier FIRs registered against him. In these circumstances, the detention order has been issued by mentioning therein in detail the grounds/reasons as to what has necessitated the passing of the impugned order. The order is in vernacular. It is not the case of the petitioner that this order was not handed over to him or that he does not understands the language in which the impugned order was issued. 11. In said circumstances, in light of the fact that the Authority has exercised the power vested in it by a Statute, by 10 2025:HHC:25480 following the provisions of the Statute in letter and spirit, this petition has no merit. 12. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 31, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)