Image credits - LiveLaw
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reinforced that the degree of evidence needed to justify preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1998 (PITNDPS Act), is considerably lower than the evidence required under other detention laws. This decision was made by a division bench consisting of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Puneet Gupta while dismissing an appeal challenging the preventive detention of an individual involved in repeated drug offenses.
The Court emphasized that the PITNDPS Act, aimed at curbing drug trafficking and preventing future offenses, operates under a different evidentiary standard compared to other preventive detention statutes. “For detention under this Act, the sense of anxiety and seriousness on the part of the State is far greater than under other preventive detention statutes,” the bench observed. The Court clarified that while other detention laws may require more substantial material and evidence to justify the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction, the PITNDPS Act permits a lower threshold of evidence based on the circumstances.
The Court highlighted that there is no fixed rule for the amount of material needed under the PITNDPS Act, as it is heavily dependent on the specific facts of each case. The role of the Court is to ensure that the detaining authority’s satisfaction is not based on illusory or fanciful grounds, which was not found to be the case here.
The judgment reflects the preventive nature of the PITNDPS Act, noting that its purpose is to prevent future drug-related offenses rather than to punish past conduct. This distinction underscores the different standards of evidence applicable under the Act compared to those required in criminal trials.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the preventive detention of Khajuria as justified under the PITNDPS Act, affirming that the detention order was valid and did not warrant interference.