The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a preventive detention order against a woman after finding that authorities failed to comply with the constitutional safeguards governing her right to make a representation. Justice Virinder Aggarwal held that unexplained delays at multiple stages made the continued detention constitutionally unsustainable.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had challenged a detention order dated November 1, 2025, passed by the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act).
An earlier detention order against her had been set aside by the Advisory Board. Subsequently, FIR No. 103 dated August 4, 2025, was registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. The fresh detention order followed on November 1, 2025.
The petitioner submitted representations to the Chandigarh authorities on November 26, 2025. However, she was informed only on December 16 that she could also approach the Central Government. Her representation to the Central Government was submitted on December 24, 2025, but was ultimately rejected on June 2, 2026.
Court’s Observation
The High Court focused on Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which protects a person in preventive detention by requiring that they be given an earliest opportunity to challenge the detention.
The Court noted that the petitioner was informed of her right to approach the Central Government nearly 45 days after the detention order.
The Court observed:
“Such belated communication necessarily curtailed the petitioner's opportunity to avail herself of an important constitutional safeguard at the earliest possible stage and cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity.”
The Court also found delays in forwarding and deciding the representations. The representation to the Central Government was received by the concerned division only on March 16, 2026, nearly three months after it was submitted.
The High Court emphasised that preventive detention involves curtailment of personal liberty without a prior judicial finding of guilt. Therefore, constitutional safeguards must be followed promptly and meaningfully.
It further held:
“There is delay at every step i.e. informing about rights, forwarding of representations, furnishing of comments and decision of representations.”
Decision
Finding that the cumulative delays violated the safeguards under Article 22(5), the High Court held that the continued detention could not legally be sustained.
The Court accordingly allowed the writ petition and quashed the detention order dated November 1, 2025, along with the consequential continued detention.
The petitioner was directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if she was not required in any other case.
All pending miscellaneous and connected applications were also disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Bala v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others
Case Number: CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M)
Judge: Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Decision Date: August 24, 2026
-300x169.webp)
