A Division Bench of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh, while dismissing an appeal against an order passed by the Single Bench, seeking to quash the detention order against him under the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 (PITNDPS Act) ruled that delay in arresting a detenue, or delay in passing the detention order from the date of the proposal will not vitiate the detention order as a common underlying principle in both situations would be the “live & proximate link” between the grounds of detention & the avowed purpose of detention.

Brief facts leading to the Appeal were that the Appellant while challenging the order passed by the detaining authority/ Divisional Commissioner Kashmir had contented in his petition that he had been implicated falsely for the commission of offences punishable under sections 8/20 NDPS Act and had also been admitted to bail by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The detention order was also assailed on the ground that the grounds of detention were vague on the basis of which no prudent man can make an effective representation and if the impugned order of detention is allowed to be executed, the same will result in grave economic crisis to the petitioner as he may lose his job; that no fresh activity as alleged in the grounds of detention and that the impugned order has been passed in hot haste. The Single Bench, while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Government of India & Ors vs Alka Subhah Gadia, [(1992) Supp (1) SSC 496]” and “Subhash Popatlal Dave vs Union of India & Anr., [(2012) 7 SCC 533]” dismissed the Petition, which order came under challenge before the Division Bench.

However, the Division Bench while dismissing the appeal, laid emphasis on certain important principles as enunciated by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts in relation to matters concerning preventive detention.

Where one of the grounds of Appeal was that that the appellant/petitioner had been detained on vague grounds and his detention had been ordered in the month of October relying upon the involvement of the appellant/petitioner in a case of NDPS Act, registered against him in the year 2021, as such, the detention order has been passed on a stale incident with no proximate or live link between the activities of the appellant/petitioner and the detention order, the Court, while relying on the case titled “Abhishek Gupta vs Union of India & Ors, [AIR Online 2022 DEL 592]” and “Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2012) 2 SCC 72]”, observed, “we are of the view that the delay cannot be said to be such an inordinate so as to say that the link in the meanwhile snapped so as to vitiate the detention order”

The Court also observed that non-reflection of bail granted in favor of the appellant would also not be fatal to the detention order as it had been sufficiently recorded by the detaining authority/Commissioner while ordering the detention that he was arrested and involvement in the commission of case regarding which the FIR has been registered.

The Division Bench also observed the ramifications of the geo-political location of the U.T of Kashmir, vis-à-vis illegal trade of drugs and its proceeds, considering how the UT is bordering hostile neighbors, and thus stated, “Having regard to the geo-political location of the UT of Jammu & Kashmir bordering hostile neighbouring Countries, which have been pushing drugs to this part of the Country not only for illegal trade but to use the proceeds thereof in the sustenance of cross border terrorism, so the menace of drugs in this part of Country has to be seriously looked into having its wider ramifications as smuggling and trade of the narcotics will not only destabilize the economy of the area but shall also be detrimental to the national interest if the proceeds of illegal trade are used to sustain the terrorist.”