Man Detained Illegally, State Authority To Pay Compensation: Manipur High Court

The Manipur High Court bench comprising Justices M.V. Muralidaran and A. Guneshwar Sharma recently directed the state authority to pay a nominal sum of Rs.50,000 to the detenu as compensation for his illegal detention for 13 days in a drug trafficking case.

The writ petition was filed by the father of the detenu. He was detained under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic In Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1988 for having possession of plastic packets filled with blackish sticky substance that was suspected to be opium. It was said that the detenu was trying to make easy money by engaging in illegal drug trafficking and will continue to indulge in the same if released on bail. Hence, he was kept in preventive detention for a period of three months.

Section 3(1) in The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988:

(1) The Central Government or a State Government, or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person (including a foreigner) 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.

The detenu made two representations on his behalf. He submitted to the Special Home Secretary and the State Advisory Board that he was being falsely implicated by the police and requested for revoking the detention order. Thereafter a second detention order was passed against the detenu to prevent him form being involved in illegal drug trafficking but was directed to be released on default bail on December 1, 2022 as the charge sheet could not be filed within a statuary period of 180 days. 

The petitioner submitted that the said representations are kept pending till date which is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 

The petitioner submitted that in preventive detention, the second order of detention ought to be based on new facts and repeated detention order could not be passed on similar facts.

In the light of the aforementioned the court observed that-

“The 1st detention order dated 02.09.2022 was valid only for 3 months and on its expiry, there was no order for extension of the same nor no confirmation order was issued prior to 02.12.2022. However, vide order dated 15.12.2022, the State Government revoked the detention order without assigning any specific reason and the 2nd detention order dated 16.12.2022 was issued. But in the counter affidavit filed by the State Authority, it is stated that the 1st detention order was revoked due to technicalities. From the period 02.12.2022 to 15.12.2022, there was no order from the State Authority to keep the detenu under detention. So, in another word, the detenu was under illegal detention for the period from 02.12.2022 to 15.12.2022 and the State Authority has not given any justification in this regard. It is the specific case of the detenu that he was under illegal detention for 13 days.”

Hench the court directed the state authority to pay a nominal sum of Rs.50,000 to the detenu as compensation for his illegal detention for 13 days in a drug trafficking case.

CASE: KAIKAM KIGPEN V. STATE OF MANIPUR 

W.P. (Crl) 32 OF 2022