The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has set aside a preventive detention order issued under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act), ruling that an unexplained delay of nearly two years between the last alleged criminal incident and the passing of the detention order breaks the requisite causal nexus. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar held that the absence of a proximate and continuous link invalidates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, rendering the detention unlawful.
Background of the Case
The ruling was delivered on a Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by P. Rahul and another, challenging the preventive detention of the detenu, P. Parandamu @ Parandamaiah.
The Principal Secretary to the Government had passed the preventive detention order vide G.O.Rt.No.1429, Revenue (Excise.II) Department on November 21, 2025, under Section 3(1) of the PIT NDPS Act, 1988. The order was subsequently confirmed by the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.72, Revenue (Excise.II) Department on January 13, 2026.
The detention order was founded upon seven criminal cases registered against the detenu under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act):
- Cr.No.128/2011 under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act at Srikalahasti II Town Police Station.
- Cr.No.01/2015 under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act at Srikalahasti II Town Police Station.
- Cr.No.78/2016 under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act at Prohibition Excise Station, Srikalahasti.
- Cr.No.10/2020 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act at Renigunta Police Station.
- Cr.No.219/2020 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act at Srikalahasti II Town Police Station.
- Cr.No.280/2022 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act at Yerpedu Police Station.
- Cr.No.39/2023 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act at Srikalahasti II Town Police Station.
Submissions of the Parties
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, submitted that the last criminal incident relied upon occurred on April 3, 2023, whereas the detention order was executed on November 21, 2025—after an interval of approximately two years. The counsel argued that invoking the stringent provisions of the preventive detention law after such an extensive delay from the last occurrence, and many more years from the earlier cases, was neither warranted nor legally sustainable.
Opposing the plea, learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri Akula Venkata Sai Jagadeesh contended that the detaining authority had evaluated the cumulative pattern of the detenu’s conduct, giving weight to the more recent cases from 2020, 2022, and 2023. The State asserted that these continuous offences demonstrated an ongoing propensity to engage in the illicit trafficking of cannabis, thereby preserving the live and proximate link through repeated narcotic offences up to 2023.
The Court’s Analysis and Precedents
Examining the rival contentions and the material on record, the Bench reiterated the established principle that there must be a proximate and continuous link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention to support a rational nexus.
The High Court drew support from the Supreme Court judgment in Mohd. Sahabuddin v. Distt. Magistrate, 24 Parganas, where a preventive detention order was quashed solely because it was passed nearly seven months after the criminal occurrence. The Bench highlighted paragraph 3 of that decision:
“On the basis that there is a long unexplained delay between the criminal occurrence and the detention order, this Court has held that such detention must be held illegal because the subjective satisfaction has no proximate rational nexus with the prejudicial act. We have to follow the same view here also. The order of detention is quashed, the rule nisi made absolute and the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith.”
The Court also referenced Rajinder Arora v. Union of India, which affirmed that delay in issuing an order of detention serves as a valid ground for quashing. That ruling cited T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, wherein the Apex Court observed that while the test of proximity is not a mechanical counting of months, undue and unexplained delay casts serious doubt on the authority’s subjective satisfaction:
“The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard-and-fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case.”
The quoted decision further noted:
“Similarly when there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of order of detention and the date of securing the arrest of the detenu, such a delay would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority leading to a legitimate inference that the detaining authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner.”
Applying these legal standards to the facts before it, the Bench observed that the detention order was passed nearly two years after the last incident listed in ground number seven, while the remaining six incidents were from much earlier periods. Highlighting the absence of any justification for this lapse of time, the Court observed:
“If the necessity of passing the order of preventive detention was not considered for such a long period, there cannot be any justification nor a causal connection between the incidents and the necessity to detain preventively the detenu for the object or purpose of preventive detention. There is long unexplained delay between the criminal occurrences and the detention order. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has no proximate rational nexus with the criminal incidents. The order of preventive detention and of confirmation cannot be sustained.”
Decision of the Court
Holding that the subjective satisfaction lacked a proximate rational nexus with the criminal occurrences, the High Court allowed the writ petition. The preventive detention order dated November 21, 2025, and the subsequent confirmation order dated January 13, 2026, were set aside.
The Bench directed that the detenu be released immediately, provided he is not required to be detained in connection with any other pending case. No order was made as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Case Title: P.Rahul & another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and 6 others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 11968 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar
Date: 09.09.2026
