Preventive detention over relabelled expired drug sales struck down, since IPC and Drugs Act remedies were sufficient

Preventive detention for alleged sale of expired drugs after relabelling was held unlawful because the conduct was adequately addressable under the IPC and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, making resort to preventive detention impermissible. The SC held that where ordinary penal law is sufficient to deal with the alleged acts, a detention order lacks legal justification and cannot be sustained. The appeal was allowed and the detention orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the preventive detention order was lawful where the grounds alleged a likelihood of the detenu being released on bail based on unspecified "similar cases" and whether ordinary criminal law was sufficient to deal with the allegations, thereby rendering recourse to preventive detention impermissible.

Analysis: The decision examines the requirements for valid preventive detention under Article 22(3)(b) read with Article 21, emphasising that preventive detention is an exception to the right to personal liberty and must be confined to narrow limits. The analysis identifies two core legal thresholds: (i) the detaining authority must possess credible material justifying a reasonable likelihood of imminent release on bail (where relied upon) and such material must contain specific particulars (dates, bail application numbers, whether bail was in respect of co-accused on the same footing), and (ii) preventive detention can be resorted to only if ordinary criminal law is insufficient to meet the exigency; otherwise criminal prosecution alone must suffice. A bald or ipse dixit statement asserting that "in similar cases bails were granted" without particulars fails the requirement of reliable material to support the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. Where ordinary penal statutes (Indian Penal Code and Drugs and Cosmetics Act) provide adequate remedies for the alleged conduct, preventive detention is not justified. Procedural and substantive safeguards for detention orders must be strictly complied with and cannot be dispensed with on account of the seriousness of allegations.

Conclusion: The detention order is unlawful and quashed because the grounds relied upon were ipse dixit regarding likelihood of release on bail without requisite particulars and because the ordinary criminal law was adequate to deal with the allegations; the detenu is to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

---