State Government’s Exclusive Power to Prescribe Detention Period under the PIT-NDPS Act up to 12 Months
Introduction
In Atul S/O Shri Ashok Patel through his mother and representative Smt. Lalu Patel v. Union of India (2025: MPHC-IND-9783), the Madhya Pradesh High Court examined the validity of a preventive detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT-NDPS Act). The petitioner, a young man of 21 years, faced multiple narcotics-related charges and was detained for six months by order of the Commissioner, Indore Division. The principal issue raised was whether the detaining authority’s specification of a six-month detention period in its initial order could bind the State Government or Advisory Board when confirming the order.
Key parties:
- Petitioner: Atul S/O Shri Ashok Patel, represented by his mother, Smt. Lalu Patel.
- Respondents: Union of India and State of Madhya Pradesh (Commissioner, Indore; Advisory Board; State Government).
Summary of the Judgment
By majority, Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh dismissed the writ petition. The Court held:
- Under the PIT-NDPS Act, a detaining authority (Commissioner) may order detention without specifying a period. The confirmation by the State Government, after referral to and advice from the Advisory Board, may fix a period up to the statutory maximum of 12 months (Section 11).
- The period initially mentioned by the detaining authority does not limit the State Government’s power under Section 9(f) to confirm and set the detention period independent of that initial figure.
- The Supreme Court’s decision in Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [(SC) 678 Live Law] confirmed that the three-month ceiling in Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution applies only to the initial order up to the Advisory Board’s report, not to the subsequent period confirmed by the Government.
- The petitioner’s challenge failed because no prejudice arose from the detaining authority’s mention of six months, and the confirmatory order was lawfully framed within the Act’s scheme.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
1. Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 2304 of 2023): Established that:
- Article 22(4)(a)’s three-month limit governs the initial detention stage prior to Advisory Board advice.
- After the Advisory Board’s opinion, the Government may confirm detention up to 12 months without further reference to the three-month limit.
2. Abdul Razak v. State Of Karnataka (Fb), ILR 2017 Kar 4608 (FB): Held that delegation of detention power under Section 3(2) of the Act cannot exceed three months per delegation, but this does not constrain the Government’s confirmatory authority under Section 9(f).
3. Cherukuri Mani: Referenced regarding the non-requirement of periodic review once the Advisory Board has confirmed sufficient cause for detention.
Legal Reasoning
The Court traced the statutory scheme of the PIT-NDPS Act:
- Section 3(1)/(2): Authority to detain suspected offenders of illicit narcotics trafficking; initial order may omit a detention period.
- Section 9(b) & (c): Mandatory referral to the Advisory Board within five weeks and Board’s mandatory opinion within eleven weeks of detention.
- Section 9(f): Post-Board, the Government “may confirm the detention order… for such period as it thinks fit,” subject to Section 11’s 12-month maximum.
- Section 11: Caps total detention at 12 months from the date of arrest.
Impact
This Judgment:
- Affirms the Government’s unfettered power under the PIT-NDPS Act to fix detention periods (up to 12 months) upon confirmation, regardless of the period specified by the detaining authority.
- Resolves ambiguity over the interplay between initial orders, Advisory Board advice, and confirmatory orders—with the initial period no longer binding.
- Ensures that detention machinery under narcotics law is streamlined: only one legally binding detention period need be specified at confirmation.
- Guides lower courts and detaining authorities to avoid clerical fixation on initial periods, focusing instead on compliance with statutory timelines and Board process.
Complex Concepts Simplified
Detaining Authority vs. Confirming Authority: The Commissioner (or delegated officer) issues the initial detention order to prevent illicit trafficking. The State Government acts as the confirming authority, relying on an independent Advisory Board’s opinion before finalizing any detention period.
Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution: Protects against indefinite preventive detention by requiring Government approval (or detaining officer’s approval) within 12 days of detention and binds the initial period to a maximum of three months—only until the Advisory Board reports.
Role of the Advisory Board: A statutory tribunal that reviews detention orders, ensuring “sufficient cause” exists before the Government makes a final decision.
Statutory Timelines:
- Detention order served and Government informed within 10 days.
- Board referral within 5 weeks of detention.
- Board opinion within 11 weeks of detention.
- Maximum detention duration capped at 12 months from the date of initial deprivation of liberty.
Conclusion
The High Court’s decision in Atul S/O Shri Ashok Patel v. Union of India cements a pivotal principle in preventive detention jurisprudence under the PIT-NDPS Act: once the Advisory Board endorses detention, the State Government’s confirmatory order alone fixes the detention period—up to the statutory maximum of 12 months—regardless of any earlier timeline noted by the detaining authority. This clarification aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pesala Nookaraju and streamlines preventive detention procedure by delineating clear powers, responsibilities, and timelines for all stakeholders in the narcotics control framework.
Comments