AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
reflect any reason for transferring the petitioner to Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. He submits that, in fact, the transfer of the petitioner to Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai would make the detention order punitive, inasmuch as, the petitioner would be away from her family and due to language barriers, will also be suffering mentally. He submits that though such a power may be vested in the Central Government under Section 5 of the PITNDPS Act, the same has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and for reasons to be recorded; the same are lacking in the present case.
We find merit in the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
Section 5 of the PITNDPS Act reads as under:-
“5.Power to regulate place and conditions of detention.-Every person in respect of whom a detention order has been made shall be liable-
(a)to be detained in such place and under such conditions including conditions as to maintenance, interviews of communication with others, discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline, as the appropriate Government may, by general or special order specify; and
(b)to be removed from one place of detention to another place of detention, whether within the same State or in another State by order of the appropriate Government:
Provided that no order shall be made by a State Government under clause (b) for the removal of a person from one State to another State except with the consent of the Government of that other State.”
Section 5(a) of the PITNDPS Act empowers the appropriate Government, that is, the Central Government, to direct that any person in respect of whom the detention order has been made, be detained at such place and under such conditions, including conditions as to maintenance, interviews or communication with others, discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline, as it may specify “by general or special order”. In the present case, there is a special order passed with respect to the petitioner herein, directing that she shall be detained and kept at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. However, the impugned order or the Grounds of Detention do not reflect any reason for passing such special order. In absence of reasons, the direction for the petitioner to be kept at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, when the Detention Order has been passed at Delhi and the petitioner is a resident of Delhi, would make such direction arbitrary and unreasonable.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned Detention Order, insofar as it has directed the detention of the petitioner at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai, is quashed.
As the Detention Order has been confirmed by the order dated 15.06.2026, we direct that instead of releasing the petitioner, the petitioner shall be brought back and be detained in a prison in Delhi.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the challenge to the Detention Order, and we reserve liberty to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law in an appropriate proceeding.
The order be complied with within a period of two weeks from today.
The petition is partly allowed in the above terms.
We are informed that inadvertently appearance of Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, CGSC, appearing for the respondent no. 1, was not recorded in our order dated 26.05.2026. The said order shall therefore, be deemed to include the name of Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, CGSC, as appearing for the respondent no. 1.