CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:1:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision:24.08.2026

Bala

… Petitioner

Versus

U.T. Chandigarh and Others

... Respondents

-.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present:-Mr. Harshit Sethi, Advocate,

Mr. Parvez Chaudhary, Advocate and

Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Tajeshwar Singh Sullar, Advocate,

Central Govt. Counsel, UOI.

Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Shashank Shekhar Suman, Advocate

for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

-.-

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1.  The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of an

appropriate writ, particularly in the nature of Habeas Corpus, for her

immediate release from preventive detention pursuant to detention order

bearing No. HIII(2)-2025/15051 dated 01.11.2025 (Annexure P-9), passed

by the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration.

1.1.  The earlier detention order passed against the petitioner was

quashed by the Advisory Board vide order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P-

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:2:-

5), pursuant to which she was released from detention. However, shortly

thereafter, FIR No. 103 dated 04.08.2025 came to be registered against the

petitioner along with 21 other persons on the basis of alleged secret

information that the accused persons were engaged in the business of

narcotic drugs and that, upon search, recovery of contraband could be

effected. Significantly, no search was conducted, no recovery was effected,

no accused was arrested and, according to the petitioner, no meaningful

investigation followed. It is, therefore, alleged that the said FIR was

subsequently utilised merely to create fresh material against the petitioner

and to furnish a purported basis for passing another detention order.

1.2.  It is further the petitioner's case that the fresh detention order

dated 01.11.2025 was founded substantially upon the material which had

already formed the basis of the earlier detention order quashed by the

Advisory Board, with the registration of FIR No. 103 dated 04.08.2025

being the only material circumstance subsequently introduced. The

petitioner was supplied the grounds of detention and was apprised of her

right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority and the Advisory

Board. She submitted representations dated 26.11.2025 before the

respective authorities. However, it was only on 16.12.2025, i.e. after a

substantial lapse of time, that she was informed of her statutory right to

make a representation to respondent No.5-Union of India through the Joint

Secretary to the Government of India. The petitioner accordingly

submitted her representation before the Central Government on

24.12.2025. The detention was thereafter confirmed by the Advisory

Board vide order dated 16.01.2026 and is to continue up to 31.10.2026.

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:3:-

1.3. The petitioner assails the detention principally on the ground

that there exists no live, proximate and rational nexus between the alleged

prejudicial activities relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the

necessity for her preventive detention. It is further contended that the

detention order substantially resurrects the very material which had earlier

failed to sustain the detention, while the subsequent FIR, allegedly relied

upon as the fresh circumstance, did not culminate in any recovery, search

or arrest.

2.  Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's

constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has

been rendered illusory by the failure of the authorities to promptly and

effectively apprise her of her statutory right to make a representation to the

Central Government. It is contended that the delay of approximately 45

days in communicating such right caused serious prejudice to the

petitioner and materially impaired her constitutional safeguard against

preventive detention. It is further submitted that the representations

submitted by the petitioner were required to be considered with utmost

expedition and that any unexplained or unreasonable delay in their

disposal vitiates the continued detention. Reliance has been placed upon

the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaseela Shaji Vs. The

Union of India and Others, 2024 (9) SCC 53, Sarabjeet Singh Mokha

Vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and Others, 2021 (20) SCC 98 and

Alfiya A. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., Law Finder ID No. 2956571.

3.  Notice of motion was issued. Pursuant thereto, respondent-

Chandigarh Administration entered appearance and filed a detailed para-

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:4:-

wise reply to the writ petition. In its reply, the respondent-authorities have

raised the necessary preliminary objections and, while specifically

traversing and controverting the averments and grounds urged by the

petitioner, have sought to justify the impugned detention and the action

taken by the competent authorities in accordance with law. It has been

asserted that the detention of the petitioner is lawful and sustainable and

that no violation of the constitutional or statutory safeguards, as alleged,

has been occasioned. The respondents-authorities have accordingly prayed

for dismissal of the writ petition, being devoid of merit. The said reply,

together with the material placed on record in support thereof, has been

duly taken into consideration while adjudicating the present proceedings.

3.1. Respondent No.5/Union of India, through the Joint Secretary,

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, PITNDPS Unit, New Delhi,

has filed a detailed reply asserting due compliance with the statutory

procedure under Section 9 of the PITNDPS Act, 1988. It is submitted that

the Advisory Board duly considered the petitioner’s case and

representation, afforded her personal hearing on 05.01.2026 and opined

that sufficient cause existed for her detention. The representation dated

24.12.2025, along with the comments of the Detaining Authority and other

relevant material, was duly considered by the competent authority and

rejected vide Memorandum dated 02.06.2026 (Annexure R-1).

Accordingly, the answering respondent No.5 denies any deliberate,

unexplained or unreasonable delay and prays for dismissal of the writ

petition.

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:5:-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the petitioner

was not promptly informed of her right to make a representation to the

Central Government and that the representations submitted by her were

not dealt with and decided with the expedition mandated by Article 22(5)

of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, contended that the continued

detention of the petitioner stands vitiated for violation of the constitutional

safeguards governing preventive detention. Reliance has been placed upon

the judgments noticed hereinbefore.

5.  Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Chandigarh

Administration and the Union of India submits that mere delay in

consideration or disposal of a representation does not, ipso facto,

invalidate preventive detention, provided such delay is satisfactorily

explained and does not demonstrate any want of due diligence on the part

of the competent authority. It is contended that the representations of the

petitioner were duly processed and considered with reasonable

promptitude and that no unexplained or extraordinary delay has been

occasioned so as to render the detention constitutionally infirm. Reliance

has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Licil

Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Another, 2014 (1) SCC 326.

6. In order to appreciate the rival submissions and examine

whether the constitutional mandate governing preventive detention has

been duly adhered to, it would be apposite to notice, in a chronological

sequence, the material dates and events emerging from the record, which

are reproduced hereunder:-

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:6:-

i.

The earlier detention order passed against the petitioner was set

aside by the Advisory Board vide order dated 18.07.2025

(Annexure P-5).

ii.

Thereafter, FIR No. 103 dated 04.08.2025, under Section 21 of

the NDPS Act, came to be registered at Police Station Sector-

39, Chandigarh.

Iii.

After a lapse of approximately three months from the

registration of the aforesaid FIR, the fresh detention order under

Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act was passed on 01.11.2025.

iv.

On 03.11.2025, the petitioner was apprised of her right to make

a representation to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh

Administration, being the Detaining Authority, as well as to the

Chief Secretary, Chandigarh Administration and the Advisory

Board.

v.

The petitioner submitted her representations before the

aforesaid authorities on 26.11.2025.

vi.

It was only on 16.12.2025 that the petitioner was apprised of her

right to make a representation to the Central Government.

Vii.

The petitioner thereafter submitted her representation to the

Central Government on 24.12.2025.

viii.

The U.T. Home Department, on 14.01.2026, called for

comments from the Sponsoring Authority in respect of the

petitioner's representation dated 26.11.2025.

ix.

In the meantime, the Advisory Board passed the order

confirming the petitioner's detention on 16.01.2026.

x.

The comments of the Sponsoring Authority were furnished on

30.01.2026.

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:7:-

xi.

The Chandigarh Administration forwarded the petitioner's

representation dated 24.12.2025 to the Central Government on

03.02.2026.

xii.

The Chief Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, rejected the

representation dated 26.11.2025, recording that the Home

Secretary had already rejected the same on 23.02.2026.

xiii.

The Home Secretary/Detaining Authority rejected the

representation dated 26.11.2025 on 25.02.2026.

xiv.

The petitioner's representation addressed to the Central

Government was received in the PITNDPS Division of the

Central Government on 16.03.2026.

xv.

Thereafter, on 18.03.2026, the Central Government called for

para-wise comments and the relevant material of the Advisory

Board from the Chandigarh Administration.

Xvi.

The Chandigarh Administration furnished the requisite

comments and material to the Central Government on

24.05.2026.

xvii.

Ultimately, the Central Government rejected the petitioner's

representation dated 24.12.2025 on 02.06.2026.

6.2.  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. Such belated communication of a vital

constitutional safeguard directly bears upon the petitioner's effective and

meaningful exercise of the right to make a representation against her

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:8:-

preventive detention. The question, therefore, is whether such delay, in the

absence of a satisfactory explanation demonstrating due diligence on the

part of the detaining authorities, has impaired the constitutional guarantee

under Article 22(5). In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alfiya A. Vs. State of Kerala

& Ors. (supra), wherein the legal position has been enunciated as under:-

“17. It has already been noted that Article 22(5) of the Constitution

casts upon the authority making the order of detention two distinct

obligations, and that the second of them is to afford the detenu the

earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.

That opportunity carries with it, as a necessary concomitant, the

obligation of the authority to inform the detenu of the persons or

bodies to whom he may address his representation. Where the

order of detention has been made by an officer specially

empowered under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, the detenu is

entitled to make a representation to that officer, who made the

order and who is competent to revoke it, and he must be informed

of that right. That such a right, distinct from the right to represent

to the State Government, to the Advisory Board and to the Central

Government, enures to the detenu and must be made known to him,

was settled by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Kamleshkumar

Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India,1995(4) SCC 51, in relation to

this very Act among others. The failure to inform the detenu of it

renders the opportunity to represent incomplete and deprives him

of a valuable safeguard.”

7.  In the present case, the chronology noticed hereinbefore

discloses a delay of approximately 45 days in apprising the petitioner of

her constitutional right to make a representation to the Central

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:9:-

Government. Such a safeguard is not a matter of formality but constitutes

an integral facet of the protection guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the

Constitution of India. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alfiya A.

Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (supra), the obligation to communicate the

detenue’s right to make a representation to the Central Government is

independent of any question of prejudice and is required to be discharged

by the detaining authority in accordance with law. 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.

7.1. 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.

7.2. 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

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:10:-

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.

7.3. 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. 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. Any unexplained hiatus in the decision-making process must,

therefore, be examined with corresponding strictness. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Alfiya A. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (supra) has

reiterated the aforesaid principles, the relevant portion whereof reads as

under:-

“20. There is also an unexplained delay in dealing with the

representation. Even if the order of confirmation dated 19.03.2026

is treated as the first decision upon the representation dated

13.02.2026, a period of 34 days had elapsed before such

consideration. A further period of eight days elapsed before the

rejection was communicated to the detenu on 27.03.2026. No

separate order deciding the representation has been placed before

us. Nor has any satisfactory or day-to-day explanation been

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:11:-

furnished for the time taken either to consider the representation or

to communicate the decision. The general statement that the

representation was examined together with the opinion of the

Advisory Board does not explain the delay. It instead reinforces the

conclusion that the representation was not treated as an

independent constitutional process requiring immediate attention.”

8.  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. However, where the delay remains unexplained or

reflects want of diligence, the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5)

is rendered illusory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaseela Shaji Vs. The

Union of India and Others (supra), while reiterating the principles

enunciated in Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 1981 (1)

SCC 416, has held that unexplained delay in transmitting a representation

from the jail to the competent authority constitutes gross negligence and

extreme callousness in dealing with the representation of a detenue. In

Tara Chand (supra), a delay of one month and five days in forwarding the

representation by the jail authorities to the Government was held to

demonstrate gross negligence and extreme callousness. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court further underscored that the obligation of the appropriate

Government or the Detaining Authority to afford the detenue the earliest

opportunity to make a representation and to consider the same with

expedition is distinct and independent of its obligation to place the

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:12:-

representation, along with other relevant material, before the Advisory

Board for enabling it to form its opinion.

9.  The insistence upon expedition in the consideration of a

representation is not merely procedural but flows from the constitutional

mandate itself. In Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1982

(2) SCC 43, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that a delay of 14 days in

transmitting the representation from Jammu to Srinagar, followed by a

further delay of 19 days in deciding the same, was sufficient to vitiate the

detention. The decision reinforces the principle that, once a representation

is made, every stage through which it is required to travel must be

traversed with the requisite promptitude and diligence.

10. The constitutional character of the right of representation has

been repeatedly emphasised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Sk. Abdul

Karim and Others Vs. State of West Bengal, 1969 (1) SCC 433, it was

unequivocally held that the right of representation guaranteed under

Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India constitutes a valuable

constitutional right and is not a mere formality. The corresponding

obligation of the authorities is, therefore, required to be discharged in its

true constitutional spirit and not as a ritualistic or mechanical exercise.

10.1. In Rashid S.K. Vs. State of West Bengal, 1973 (3) SCC 476,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the imperative of prompt

consideration of a representation made by a detenue and emphasised that

the constitutional obligation under Article 22(5) casts a duty upon the

competent authority to consider such representation with the requisite

urgency. The continued detention of a person without ensuring timely and

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:13:-

meaningful consideration of the representation would run contrary to the

very purpose of the constitutional safeguard and, where the delay remains

unexplained, would render the detention constitutionally unsustainable.

Relevant extract is as under:-

“The ultimate objective of this provision can only be the most speedy

consideration of his representation by the authorities concerned, for,

without its expeditious consideration with a sense of urgency the basic

purpose of affording earliest opportunity of making the representation is

likely to be defeated. This right to represent and to have the

representation considered at the earliest flows from the constitutional

guarantee of the right to personal liberty-the right which is highly

cherished in our Republic and its protection against arbitrary and

unlawful invasion."

10.2. In Jaseela Shaji Vs. The Union of India and Others (supra),

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the constitutional imperative

of expeditious consideration of a representation made by a detenue, has

held as under:-

“70. We may only reiterate what has been laid down in the earlier

judgments of this Court that the Prison Authorities should ensure

that the representations are sent to the Competent Authorities

immediately after the receipt thereof. In the present era of

technological development, the said representation can be sent

through email within a day. It is further needless to reiterate that

the Competent Authority should decide such representation with

utmost expedition so that the valuable right guaranteed to the

detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution is not denied. In the

matters pertaining to personal liberty of the citizens, the

Authorities are enjoined with a constitutional obligation to decide

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:14:-

the representation with utmost expedition. Each day's delay

matters in such a case.”

10.3.  In Sarabjeet Singh Mokha Vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur

and Others (supra), the detention order was passed on 11.05.2021 and

approved by the State Government on 13.05.2021. The detenue submitted

representations before the District Magistrate, the State Government and

the Central Government on 18.05.2021, which were communicated to the

respective authorities on 20.05.2021. Thereafter, para-wise comments

were called for on 02.06.2021 and were furnished on 10.06.2021, whereas

the representation was ultimately rejected by the Union Home Secretary

only on 24.06.2021. Taking note of the aforesaid chronology, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that the delay in consideration of the representation

had deprived the detenue of the valuable constitutional/statutory right to

have his representation considered with the requisite expedition, thereby

rendering the continued detention legally unsustainable.

11. Having regard to the aforesaid chronology and the principles

governing preventive detention, this Court finds that the constitutional

safeguards guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 22(5) of the

Constitution of India have not been complied with in their true letter and

spirit. In the first instance, there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay

of approximately 45 days in apprising the petitioner of her right to make a

representation to the Central Government. Such belated communication

necessarily curtailed the petitioner's opportunity to avail herself of an

important constitutional safeguard at the earliest possible stage and cannot

be treated as a mere procedural irregularity.

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:15:-

12. The infirmity is further compounded by the subsequent delay

in consideration of the representations. The representation dated

24.12.2025 addressed to the Central Government remained pending until

02.06.2026, i.e. for a period exceeding five months, which reached the

concerned division of Central Government after a delay of nearly 3

months on 16.03.2026. Likewise, the representations dated 26.11.2025

were considered by the Chief Secretary only on 23.02.2026 and by the

Home Secretary/Detaining Authority on 25.02.2026, after a lapse of nearly

three months. 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. 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.

13. In matters of preventive detention, where personal liberty

stands curtailed without a prior adjudication of guilt, the constitutional

obligation to communicate the right of representation and to consider such

representation with the utmost expedition assumes heightened

significance. The right under Article 22(5) is a substantive constitutional

safeguard and the authorities entrusted with its implementation are

required to act with due diligence, promptitude and a sense of urgency.

The cumulative effect of the unexplained delay in apprising the petitioner

of her right to approach the Central Government and the subsequent

CRWP-1001-2026 (O&M) -:16:-

inordinate delay in transmission and consideration of the representations

by the competent authorities has, in the considered opinion of this Court,

rendered the continued detention of the petitioner constitutionally

unsustainable.

14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The

detention order dated 01.11.2025 and the consequential continued

detention of the petitioner are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be set

at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

15. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all

pending miscellaneous and connected applications, if any, arising

therefrom or ancillary thereto, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No

separate or further order is called for in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )

24.08.2026 JUDGE

Gaurav Sorot

Whether reasoned / speaking?Yes / No

Whether reportable? Yes / No