Involvement Of Terrorist Groups & Syndicates In Drug Trafficking Threatens National Security Through Narco-Terrorism: J&K&L HC Refuses To Quash Detention Order
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused to quash a preventive detention order in an illicit drug trafficking case and emphasized that the involvement of various terrorist groups and syndicates in drug trafficking leads to a threat to the national security and sovereignty of States by way of Narco-terrorism.
The High Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of an Order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 placing detenu under preventive detention to prevent him from committing any of the acts relating to illicit traffic in narcotic drugs.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul clarified, “It may be mentioned here that the powers of preventive detention under the Act of 1988, are in addition to those contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, where preventive detention is followed by an inquiry or trial.”
Advocate Shuja ul Haq represented the Petitioner while Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh represented the Respondent.
One of the contentions raised by the Petitioner was that the material relied upon by detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention was not provided to detenu, violating the Constitutional and Statutory procedural safeguards as provided to detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The Bench discarded such contention after noting that as many as 37 leaves had been given to detenu and grounds of Detention were read over and explained to him in Urdu/Kashmiri language.He understood fully and in lieu thereof, he affixed his signature on both Execution Report and Receipt of grounds of detention. On a perusal of the Records, the Bench observed that compelling and cogent reasons had been given by detaining authority to pass order of detention and selling/dealing in drugs among youth of the area.
It was also mentioned in the grounds of detention that the detenu started illegal trade of smuggling narcotic drugs to truck drivers and gradually adopted this illegal trade as his full time occupation and his activities were directly affecting the health and welfare of general people of Handwara area of District Kupwara. This also had an adverse impact on national economy.
On the law relating to preventive detention, the Bench explained, “An order of preventive detention may be made before or during prosecution. It may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. An order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution.”
“The Act of 1988, therefore, requires that the Central Government or a State Government must be satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained”, it further added.
Noting that the present matter was drug-related, the Bench said, “The drug problem is a serious threat to public health, safety and well-being of humanity. Our global society is facing serious consequences of drug abuse and it undermines the socio-economic and political stability and sustainable development. Besides, it also distorts health and fabric of society and it is considered to be originator for petty offences as well as heinous crimes, like smuggling of arms and ammunition and money laundering. Involvement of various terrorist groups and syndicates in drug trafficking leads to threat to the national security and sovereignty of States by way of Narco-terrorism.”
The Bench further explained that health-related productivity losses are higher still when lost productivity associated with drug-related hospital admissions, including victims of drug-related crimes, is included. These imperative aspects concerned with illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances cannot be overlooked or ignored.
The Bench concluded the matter by referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Prakash Chandra Mohan v. Commissioner (1986) wherein it has been held that observance of written law about the procedural safeguards for the protection of individuals is normally the high duty of public officials but in all circumstances not the highest. The law of self-preservation and protection of the country and national security may claim in certain circumstances higher priority.
Thus, without finding any merit in the Petition, the Bench dismissed the same.
Cause Title: Hilal Ahmad Dar Alias Hilla v. Union Territory of J&K and others (Case No.: HCP no. 211/2024)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Shuja ul Haq, Advocate
Respondents: Deputy AG Bikramdeep Singh, AC Nowbahar Khan
