Court rejects challenge to detention order, finding repeated NDPS involvement, prior detention, and full compliance with procedural safeguards
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the preventive detention of Firdous Ahmad Mir under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), ruling that the detention order was backed by relevant material, properly applied mind, and complied with constitutional and procedural safeguards.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed the habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order dated 26 September 2025, observing that the detenue had been repeatedly involved in narcotics-related offences and had continued illicit drug trafficking even after an earlier detention under the same law and after being released on bail in later cases.
According to the court record, Mir was implicated in multiple FIRs, including FIR No. 150/2014 under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, FIR No. 35/2017 under Section 8/21, FIR No. 98/2020 under Section 8/20, and FIR No. 57/2025 under Sections 8/21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The authorities stated that 2.2 grams of heroin was recovered from his possession in the 2025 case. The court noted that despite earlier detention under PITNDPS Act in 2020 and subsequent release in 2021, he allegedly continued his unlawful activities.
The petitioner had argued that the detention order was vague, based on conjecture, and reflected non-application of mind. He also claimed that he had not been informed of the authority to whom he could make a representation, that the grounds of detention were a verbatim copy of the police dossier, that the detaining authority had not explained why ordinary criminal law was insufficient, and that he was not properly heard by the Advisory Board. He further contended that the grounds and relied-upon material were not supplied to him in a language he understood.
Rejecting these submissions, the court held that the detention record showed due consideration of the petitioner’s repeated involvement in NDPS offences and the adverse impact of his activities on public health, social order, and vulnerable sections of society, especially youth, children, and women. The court found no similarity between the police dossier and the grounds of detention and concluded that the detention order was not a mechanical reproduction of the dossier.
On the issue of representation, the court relied on the execution report, which showed that the detenue was informed of his right to make a representation to both the Government and the detaining authority, and had signed the receipt. The court also held that the supply of documents was duly proved, noting that the detention warrant, grounds of detention, notice, dossier, and other relevant material comprising 91 pages had been furnished to him. The grounds were read over in English and explained in Urdu/Kashmiri, which he understood.
The court further observed that the petitioner did not submit any representation before the Advisory Board, which considered the material on record and later opined in favour of detention. Finding no violation of legal or constitutional safeguards, the High Court held that the detention was justified and dismissed the petition.
Bottom Line :
Preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 was upheld where the detenue was involved in multiple NDPS cases, had earlier undergone detention, continued illicit trafficking even after release and grant of bail, and the record showed that grounds of detention, right of representation and relied upon material were duly supplied and explained to him in a language understood by him.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, Sections 8/20, 8/21, 29 of the NDPS Act
