SRINAGAR: In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the authority of Divisional Commissioners in JK to issue detention orders under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act, 1988. This authority remains unaffected by the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which restructured the region into a Union Territory.
The verdict, delivered by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, dismissed a petition challenging the detention of an individual under the PITNDPS Act. The court ruled that the provisions of the Reorganisation Act and the Removal of Difficulties Order of 2019 do not disrupt the pre-existing powers of Divisional Commissioners to issue such orders.
The petitioner, a resident of Anantnag, had been detained by the Divisional Commissioner of Kashmir on 31 July 2023 for alleged involvement in large-scale drug trafficking. The petitioner argued that the PITNDPS Act had been repealed in Jammu and Kashmir following its reorganisation as a Union Territory. He sought to have the detention order quashed and demanded Rs 10 lakh in damages for alleged illegal confinement.
However, the court rejected the petitioner’s argument, referencing the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order of 2019. The court clarified that actions taken under existing laws, including the PITNDPS Act, remain valid unless explicitly overridden by central legislation. It also stated that the Reorganisation Act ensures the continuity of authorities responsible for preventive detention unless superseded by new central laws.
The court referred to a 1988 notification, SRO 247, which specifically empowered the Divisional Commissioners of Jammu and Srinagar to issue detention orders under the PITNDPS Act. The respondents argued that this authority had not been revoked and remains valid under the current Union Territory administration.
Justice Nargal also examined whether Union Territories fall under the definition of the “appropriate government” as outlined in the PITNDPS Act. Citing Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the court held that Union Territories are included within the definition of “State,” thereby empowering the Jammu and Kashmir administration to exercise its authority under the Act.
The court dismissed the petitioner’s claim that the preventive detention lacked procedural validity due to the absence of an Advisory Board. Referring to Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1450 of 2020, the court emphasised that preventive detention is a precautionary measure to avert future crimes, not a punitive action for past offences.
The court upheld the detention order, stating that the petitioner’s continued involvement in criminal activities posed a significant threat to public safety, national security, and societal welfare. Despite being released on bail, the petitioner’s persistent engagement in unlawful activities justified the preventive detention order.
For these reasons, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. (KNO)
