The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a preventive detention confirmation order passed against Jasveer Singh alias Jasbir Singh alias Kala under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The Court held that the Haryana Government failed to independently apply its mind while confirming the detention for six months.
Justice Sumeet Goel delivered the judgment on May 20, 2026, observing that a detention confirmation order cannot merely reproduce the Advisory Board’s opinion without giving reasons of its own.
Background of the Case
According to the case record, the petitioner was detained on January 8, 2026, after the Haryana Government passed a preventive detention order under the PITNDPS Act on January 7, 2026. The detention was based on allegations that he was involved in multiple NDPS cases.
The matter was later referred to the Advisory Board, which opined that there was sufficient cause to continue the detention. Based on that report, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, confirmed the detention for a period of six months from the date of arrest.
Senior Advocate Ankur Mittal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the confirmation order was passed mechanically and did not show any independent assessment by the State Government. The State, on the other hand, defended the detention and submitted that all procedural safeguards had been followed.
Court’s Observations
The High Court examined Article 22 of the Constitution and provisions of the PITNDPS Act dealing with preventive detention. The Court stressed that even after receiving a favourable opinion from the Advisory Board, the government must independently evaluate whether continued detention is necessary.
Justice Goel observed that the law gives the government discretion, not an automatic mandate, to continue detention.
“The Appropriate Government/Confirmatory Authority cannot treat a positive/affirmative opinion of the Advisory Board as a mechanical mandate for continued incarceration,” the Court noted.
The judgment further explained that a valid confirmation order must clearly disclose reasons for both continuing the detention and deciding its duration. The Court said an order lacking reasoning becomes a “mere executive ipse dixit.”
Referring to earlier Supreme Court and Bombay High Court rulings, the Bench reiterated that authorities must reassess the entire material afresh at every stage of preventive detention proceedings.
Why the Court Set Aside the Order
While analysing the impugned order, the High Court found that the Haryana Government had simply confirmed the detention without recording any reasons.
The Court noted that the order did not explain why continued detention was necessary or why six months was considered an appropriate duration.
“The impugned confirmation order does not reflect any reason neither for confirming the detention order nor for the period for which the detention order has been passed,” the Court observed.
Decision
Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the confirmation order dated March 5, 2026, passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Haryana. The Court also directed that the petitioner be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Case Title: Jasveer Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Kala vs State of Haryana and Others
Case Number: CRWP-4590-2026
Judge: Justice Sumeet Goel
Decision Date: May 20, 2026
