The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a preventive detention order issued against Chandigarh resident Dishant Goel under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act), holding that key constitutional safeguards were not followed and that the detention could not be justified on the facts placed before the court.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj delivered the judgment on May 13, 2026, while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by the detenue challenging his detention and subsequent confirmation order.
Background of the Case
The detention order was issued on May 2, 2025, and later modified on May 13, 2025. Authorities relied on several NDPS cases registered against the petitioner over the years, including cases that resulted in convictions, acquittals, and pending proceedings.
The petitioner argued that the detention order was illegal because there was a significant delay in the detention process, important documents were not supplied to him, and preventive detention was used despite ordinary criminal law remedies being available.
The Union of India and Chandigarh Administration defended the order, stating that it was passed after examining extensive material and that all statutory procedures had been followed.
Court’s Observations
The High Court reiterated that preventive detention is an extraordinary power that directly affects personal liberty and must therefore be exercised with strict adherence to constitutional safeguards.
The bench stressed that there must be a “live and proximate link” between the alleged activities of a person and the need for preventive detention. The court observed that unexplained delays can weaken that connection and render a detention order vulnerable to challenge.
A major issue before the court was the non-supply of the detention proposal that initiated the preventive detention process. The court rejected the respondents’ argument that the proposal was merely an internal communication.
“The procedural safeguard having been breached, the continued detention of the Petitioner cannot be sustained in law,” the court observed.
According to the judgment, the proposal was a foundational document because it revealed when the detention process began and could have helped the detenue challenge the delay in the proceedings.
Detention Not a Substitute for Criminal Law
The court also examined whether preventive detention had been invoked despite the availability of remedies under ordinary criminal law.
Justice Bhardwaj noted that the petitioner had already been granted bail in the criminal cases relied upon by the authorities. The detention grounds did not allege that he violated bail conditions, tampered with evidence, threatened witnesses, or engaged in any fresh activity after securing bail.
The bench observed that if authorities believed the petitioner posed a continuing threat, they could have sought cancellation of bail or pursued other legal remedies available under criminal law.
The judgment emphasized that preventive detention cannot be used as a mechanism to bypass judicial orders or to secure custody through executive action when ordinary legal remedies remain available.
“The distinction between punitive detention and preventive detention is not merely semantic but foundational,” the court said while explaining that preventive detention is meant to prevent future conduct and not punish past acts.
Decision
Allowing the petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the failure to provide the detention proposal violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution and deprived the petitioner of an effective opportunity to make a representation against his detention. The court further found that the circumstances raised serious concerns about the use of preventive detention despite the availability of ordinary criminal law remedies.
Accordingly, the court quashed the detention order and the consequential confirmation order, directing that the petitioner be released if not required in any other case.
Case Details
Case Title: Dishant Goel v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: CRWP-9307-2025 (O&M)
Judge: Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
Decision Date: 13 May 2026
