Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over Delays Violating Article 22(5) Safeguards

Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over Delays

The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed a woman's preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act, holding that unexplained delays in informing her of her right to make representations and in processing those representations violated the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5). The Court ruled that such delays rendered the detention legally unsustainable.

📅 26 Aug 2026 👤 For: All Legal Professionals 📰 Source: The Times of India 👁 5 views

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed a preventive detention order issued against a woman under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), citing serious violations of constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed that the authorities failed to promptly inform the detenue of her right to make a representation to the Central Government. The Court noted that she was informed of this crucial right approximately 45 days after the detention order was passed, thereby depriving her of an effective opportunity to challenge her detention at the earliest stage.

The case arose from a detention order issued on November 1, 2025, by the Chandigarh Administration. The detenue subsequently submitted representations challenging her detention. However, the Court found that there were significant delays at multiple stages of the process.

The detenue's representation to the Central Government, submitted on December 24, 2025, was not forwarded promptly and remained pending for several months before a final decision was taken. The Court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay in transmitting and deciding the representations.

Emphasizing the exceptional nature of preventive detention, the High Court reiterated that constitutional safeguards must be strictly adhered to. The Court observed that preventive detention involves deprivation of personal liberty without a prior judicial determination of guilt and therefore requires strict compliance with procedural protections.

The Court held that the cumulative delays in informing the detenue of her rights, forwarding her representations, and deciding them violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Such lapses, the Court said, were not mere procedural irregularities but went to the root of the legality of the detention.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order dated November 1, 2025, and directed that the detenue be released forthwith if she was not required in any other case.

The ruling reinforces the judiciary's consistent position that preventive detention powers, being extraordinary in nature, must be exercised with strict adherence to constitutional safeguards and procedural fairness.