Morung Express News
Dimapur | February 3
The Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB has once again quashed detention orders passed by the Nagaland Government under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act, 1988, holding that the detaining authority failed to comply with mandatory constitutional and statutory safeguards.
Among the recurring deficiencies flagged by the Court is the failure to furnish the grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenu, a requirement flowing directly from Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court has consistently held that non-compliance with this mandate vitiates the detention itself.
In the most recent cases, a Division Bench comprising Justice Robin Phukan and Justice Budi Habung, on January 30, allowed two habeas corpus petitions and set aside the detention orders along with consequential rejection and confirmation orders, holding that the defects went to the root of the matter.
Language violation central to both cases
In WP (Crl.) No. 28/2025, the Court examined a detention order dated October 7, 2025, along with connected confirmation and extension orders, issued following the seizure of a large quantity of suspected narcotics during a vehicle check along National Highway-2. A subsequent preventive detention order dated November 14, 2025, passed under the PITNDPS Act, was also under challenge.
While the State contended that the detention was necessary to prevent illicit drug trafficking, the Bench found that the grounds of detention and all relied-upon documents were supplied only in English, despite the detenu being conversant only with Hindi, violating constitutional provisions.
In WP(Crl.) No. 22/2025, the Court dealt with the detention of a person arrested in connection with an NDPS case in Dimapur. The detention order dated May 30, 2025, and the confirmation order dated September 2, 2025, were challenged.
Allowing the petition, the Bench reiterated that supplying the grounds of detention in English to a detenu conversant only with Hindi amounted to a violation of Article 22(5).
While the State argued that the grounds had been explained to the detenu in Hindi and Nagamese, the Court was “unimpressed”, holding that such oral explanation could not cure the constitutional and act as barriers to an effective and meaningful representation.
In both cases, the Bench noted lack of awareness of judicial custody, absence of material indicating likelihood of bail, and non-application of mind.
It also flagged reliance on broad allegations and mechanical reproduction of police proposals.
Not isolated instances
The January 30 judgments are not isolated. In W.P.(Crl.) No. 17/2025, detention orders under the PITNDPS Act were similarly interfered with on grounds including failure to supply translated grounds of detention, absence of material showing likelihood of release on bail, and non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
Earlier, in W.P.(Crl.) No. 7/2025, decided on August 8, 2025, a coordinate Division Bench of the Kohima Bench had quashed the preventive detention of a woman under the PITNDPS Act after finding that the authorities failed to furnish the grounds of detention in a language she could understand.
In a significant judgment dated November 6, 2025, the Supreme Court reiterated that the constitutional requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest is mandatory.
A Bench comprising the then Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that “The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all Criminal Appeal offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023).”
Further, it stated that the “grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands.
The Court further directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all Registrars General of the High Courts and the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories.
