PITNDPS Act- Unexplained Delay In Informing Detenue Of Right To Represent To Central Govt Violates Article 22(5): Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Court was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking habeas corpus and immediate release from preventive detention ordered by the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, where the petitioner challenged the detention on the ground that her constitutional right to make an effective representation had been impaired.

A Bench of Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed: “The significance of prompt compliance assumes greater importance in proceedings under the PITNDPS Act, which authorises preventive detention not by way of punishment for a proved offence, but on the basis of a subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of preventing a person from engaging in prejudicial activities in future. Preventive detention thus constitutes an exceptional inroad into the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The procedural safeguards engrafted in Article 22(5), therefore, require strict, meaningful and expeditious compliance, and cannot be treated as mere technicalities.”

The Bench further held: “Once the law casts an affirmative obligation upon the authorities to apprise the detenue, at the earliest possible opportunity, of her right to make a representation to the Central Government, any substantial and unexplained delay in communicating such right assumes constitutional significance. The responsibility lies squarely upon the detaining authorities and cannot be shifted upon the detenue on the ground that she ultimately came to know of the right or exercised it subsequently. The effectiveness of the constitutional safeguard lies in its timely communication, enabling the detenue to exercise the right at the earliest and thereby secure expeditious consideration of her challenge to the detention.”

Advocate Harshit Sethi appeared for the petitioner. Central Government Counsel Tajeshwar Singh Sullar appeared for the Union of India. Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji appeared for the respondents.

Background

The petitioner was detained under the PITNDPS Act after an earlier detention order against her had been set aside by the Advisory Board. A fresh FIR under the NDPS Act was then registered, and the petitioner alleged that it was used to create fresh material for another detention order, though no search, recovery or arrest had followed from that FIR.

The petitioner submitted that she was initially informed of her right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority, the Chief Secretary and the Advisory Board, but was informed of her right to represent to the Central Government only after about 45 days. She argued that this delay, and the later delay in deciding her representations, rendered the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) illusory.

The Chandigarh Administration and the Union of India defended the detention, contending that the procedure under Section 9 of the PITNDPS Act had been followed, that the Advisory Board had considered the matter, and that delay by itself would not invalidate preventive detention if satisfactorily explained.

Court’s Observations

The Court noted that the petitioner was informed about her right to make a representation to the Central Government only after about 45 days from the detention order.

The Court observed: “The aforesaid chronology assumes significance in the context of the constitutional safeguard embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The record reveals that although the detention order was passed on 01.11.2025, the petitioner was apprised of her statutory right to make a representation to the Central Government only on 16.12.2025, i.e. after an unexplained and substantial delay of approximately 45 days.”

Relying on Alfiya A. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2026), the Court said the obligation to communicate the right to represent to the Central Government is independent of any question of prejudice.

The Court held: “The constitutional obligation cannot be diluted on the premise that the detenue may have otherwise acquired knowledge of such right or may have independently submitted a representation to the Central Government.”

The Court emphasised that preventive detention curtails liberty without punishment for a proved offence and, therefore, procedural safeguards cannot be treated as technical.

The Court observed: “Equally, the constitutional mandate does not end with the communication of the right. A representation, once made, is required to be considered and decided with utmost expedition and without avoidable or unexplained delay.”

It added: “In matters involving preventive detention, where liberty stands curtailed without a judicial determination of guilt, every authority entrusted with consideration of the representation is constitutionally obligated to act with the highest degree of diligence and promptitude.”

The Court held that delay in considering a representation does not automatically vitiate preventive detention, but must be satisfactorily explained.

The Court observed: “There can be no quarrel with the proposition that delay in consideration of a representation does not, ipso facto, vitiate preventive detention, provided such delay is satisfactorily explained and is demonstrably attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the concerned authority.”

Referring to Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India and Others (2024), Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1981), Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1982), Sk. Abdul Karim and Others v. State of West Bengal (1969), Rashid S.K. v. State of West Bengal (1973), and Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and Others (2021), the Court reiterated that representations in preventive detention matters must be handled with expedition.

The Court quoted Jaseela Shaji (2024): “In the matters pertaining to personal liberty of the citizens, the Authorities are enjoined with a constitutional obligation to decide the representation with utmost expedition. Each day's delay matters in such a case.”

The Court found that the Central Government representation remained pending for more than five months, and that other representations were decided after nearly three months.

The Court held: “The record does not disclose any cogent, compelling or legally acceptable explanation commensurate with the magnitude of these delays. There is delay at every step i.e. informing about rights, forwarding of representations, furnishing of comments and decision of representations.”

It further held: “In the age of instant communication this delay in decision of representation of 3 months and 5 months respectively amount to flagrant violation of mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and denial of Fundamental Right of detenue.”

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order and the consequential continued detention of the petitioner, and directed that she be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. All pending miscellaneous and connected applications were disposed of.

Cause Title: Bala v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:115366)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates Harshit Sethi, Parvez Chaudhary and Digvijay :PHC:Singh

Respondents: Central Government Counsel Tajeshwar Singh Sullar, Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji with Advocate Shashank Shekhar Suman

Click here to read/download Judgment