Impact of offences, not their number determines necessity for preventive detention: J&K High Court

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently held that it is the impact of an offence, rather than the number of such acts committed, that determines whether a person's preventive detention is justified [Mohd Shakoor through his wife vs Union Territory of J&K].

Justice MA Chowdhary made the observation while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed for the release of a Rajouri resident, Mohd Shakoor, who had been placed under preventive detention by citing his alleged repeated involvement in drug-related offenses.

The Court refused to set aside the preventive detention order against him after noting that there did not appear to be any procedural lapses in passing this order. Further, the Court noted that the drug trafficking offences that Shakoor was accused of pose a serious threat to public health.

"It is not the number of acts that are to be determined for detention of an individual but it is impact of the act which is material and determinative. In the instant case, the act of detenue (Shakoor) relates to drug trafficking, which has posed serious threat, apart from health and welfare of the people, to youth, most particularly unemployed youth, to indulge in such acts, ramifications thereof would be irreversible and unimaginable. Petitioner has not been able to convincingly point out violation of any statutory or constitutional provisions," the August 19 ruling said.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Shakoor's wife, challenging his preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (NDPS Act).

Shakoor was detained on an order by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, in November 2024, in view of multiple NDPS cases being registered against him since 2012.

His counsel argued that he was already on bail in all five cases filed against him and that the detention order was mechanical and violative of Article 22(5) (which lays down procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary preventive detention) of the Constitution of India.

The Court, however, found no procedural lapses as alleged in the passing of the preventive detention order.

The Court further took serious note of Shakoor's alleged repeated involvement in drug trafficking acts over the years.

It emphasized that preventive detention is not punitive but precautionary, meant to stop offenders before they cause irreversible harm to society.

The High Court further held that drug trafficking poses a grave threat to public health, youth, and national security, and that preventive detention is necessary to stop repeat offenders.

The Court also highlighted that the involvement of terrorist groups and international syndicates in the narcotics trade gives rise to narco-terrorism, posing a direct threat to national security and sovereignty.

"The drug problem is a serious threat to public health, economy and growth of humanity. Our global community is facing serious consequences of drug abuse and it undermines the socio- economic and political stability and sustainable development. Besides, it also distorts the health and fabric of the society and it is considered to be the originator for petty offences as well as heinous crimes like smuggling of arms & ammunition and money laundering. The involvement of various terrorist groups and syndicates in drug trafficking leads to threat to the national security and sovereignty of States by the way of Narco-terrorism," it said.

With these observations, the High Court dismissed the plea filed by Shakoor's wife (petitioner) and upheld the preventive detention order.

Advocate Idrees Saleem Dar appeared for the petitioner.

Senior Additional Advocate General (AAG) Monika Kohli appeared for the Jammu and Kashmir government.

[Read Order]