Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29.07.2026
HASEENA KHATOON @BAJJI @SANA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Mr. Ankit Choudhary and Ms. Falguni Katiyal, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, CGSC with Mr. Anubhav Upadhyay, Advocate for R-1/UOI.
Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Ms. Chavi Lazarus and Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Advocates.
Insp. Shiv Kumar and SI Krishna, ANTF (Crime Branch).
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the detention order bearing no. U-11011/04/2026-PITNDPS, dated 26.02.2026 PRUTHI 17:19 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned Detention Order’] passed by the respondent no. 1 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘PITNDPS Act’], directing that the petitioner be detained and kept in the Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai with a view of preventing her from engaging in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in future.
2. Though the petition challenges the Detention Order also on the merits, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not press the same in this petition as the said order has been ratified by the Advisory Board, and pursuant to the ratification of the Advisory Board in the hearing which took place on 04.06.2026, the respondent no. 1 has now confirmed the Detention Order passed against the petitioner vide order No. U-11012/09/2026-PITNDPS dated 15.06.2026. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as far as the challenge on merits is concerned, liberty be reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh petition challenging the same.
3. The limited challenge of the petitioner in the present petition that remains now, is to the impugned Detention Order directing the petitioner to be detained and kept in the Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai. The learned counsel submits that the impugned Detention Order or the grounds on which the same has been passed, do not reflect any reason for transferring the petitioner to Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. He submits that, in fact, the transfer of the petitioner to Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai would make the detention order punitive, inasmuch as, the petitioner would be away from her family PRUTHI 17:19 and due to language barriers, will also be suffering mentally. He submits that though such a power may be vested in the Central Government under Section 5 of the PITNDPS Act, the same has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and for reasons to be recorded; the same are lacking in the present case.
4. We find merit in the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
5. Section 5 of the PITNDPS Act reads as under:-
6. Section 5(a) of the PITNDPS Act empowers the appropriate Government, that is, the Central Government, to direct that any person in respect of whom the detention order has been made, be detained at such place and under such conditions, including conditions as to maintenance, interviews or communication with others, discipline and PRUTHI 17:19 punishment for breaches of discipline, as it may specify “by general or special order”. In the present case, there is a special order passed with respect to the petitioner herein, directing that she shall be detained and kept at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. However, the impugned order or the Grounds of Detention do not reflect any reason for passing such special order. In absence of reasons, the direction for the petitioner to be kept at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, when the Detention Order has been passed at Delhi and the petitioner is a resident of Delhi, would make such direction arbitrary and unreasonable.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned Detention Order, insofar as it has directed the detention of the petitioner at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai, is quashed.
8. As the Detention Order has been confirmed by the order dated 15.06.2026, we direct that instead of releasing the petitioner, the petitioner shall be brought back and be detained in a prison in Delhi.
9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the challenge to the Detention Order, and we reserve liberty to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law in an appropriate proceeding.
10. The order be complied with within a period of two weeks from today.
11. The petition is partly allowed in the above terms.
12. We are informed that inadvertently appearance of Mr. Premtosh