JUDGMENT : Y. Longkumer, J. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Alemwapang Ao along with learned counsel Ms. Y.S. Phom for the petitioner, Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the Central Government. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to quash and set aside the detention order bearing No. CON/PITNDPS/35/2024/225 dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PITNDPS Act for short) detaining the detenue under the said act. The petitioner has also assailed the Confirmation Order No. CON/PITNCPS/35/2024/184 dated 12.03.2025 by which the State Government, pursuant to the opinion of the Advisory Board, confirmed the detention order dated 12.12.2024 and further extended the detention order with effect from 12.03.2025 till 12.06.2025. 3. The petitioner is the sister of the detenue, who is presently detained under the PITNDPS Act and lodged at District Jail, Dimapur. The petitioner has been authorized by the detenue to file the present petition. 4. The petitioner’s case is that an FIR was filed on 05.07.2024 at the Narcotic Cell PS, PHQ, Kohima, Nagaland and registered as Narcotic Cell PS Case No. 10/2024 under Section 27A/8(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, and in this connection the detenue was arrested on 10.08.2024 from Dimapur, Nagaland. 5. While the detenue was under judicial custody a proposal for detention was communicated to the Special Secretary, Home, Government of Nagaland on 11.12.2024 for detaining the detenue by the Additional Director General of Police (L&O) and Chairman, Screening Board PITNDPS Act, Kohima, Nagaland vide Letter No. PHQ/IGP/CID/NAR- D/81B/2022/253 for detention of the detenue under PITNDPS Act, 1988 before the Special Secretary, Home, Government of Nagaland, Kohima. 6. When the detenue was under judicial custody, she was detained under the PITNDPS Act by the R-2/Special Secretary, Home Department exercising powers under Section 3(1) of the Act by order No. CON/PITNDPS/21/2024/252 dated 12.12.2024. It is stated in the said order that on the satisfaction of R-2 the detenue is being detained with a view to prevent her from engaging in illicit traffic in drugs and narcotics for an initial period of 3 (three) months. It is stated in the said order that on the satisfaction of R-2 the detenue is being detained with a view to prevent her from engaging in illicit traffic in drugs and narcotics for an initial period of 3 (three) months. On 13.12.2024, while, the detenue was still under judicial custody, she was served with the Detention Order, grounds of detention and information to the detainee in connection with her detention. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the grounds of detention dated 12.12.2024, it is mentioned that the Detention Order has been passed against the detenue on the grounds of her involvement in illicit trafficking in drugs and narcotic substances. It further mentions that particulars having bearing on the matters are specified in the grounds attached. It was also stated that the detenue has a right to make representation to the detaining authority, the Central Government and the State Government through the concerned jail authority. It was also mentioned that the detenue has a right to claim a personal hearing before the PITNDPS Advisory Board, but the detaining authority failed to inform the detenue that she has a right to take the assistance of a friend and also the time frame within which the detenue has to make a representation to the detaining authority and as such the detention order is in clear violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Moreover, the detenue being illiterate was not aware that she has to submit her representation at the earliest and, therefore, there was delay on her part to make the representation. 8. Learned counsel submits that the detenue submitted her representation against her Detention Order dated 12.12.2024 to the State Government, Advisory Board as well as the Central Government through the Superintendent of the Central Jail, only on 07.01.2025 as she was informed that she has to make her representation as early as possible. Upon perusal of the representation, the R-2 vide Order dated 13.01.2024 rejected the representation on the ground that there are no justified grounds to revoke the order of detention. 9. The R-4 on behalf of the Central Government also rejected the detenue’s representation on the ground that no merit was found in the contentions made in the representation. Upon perusal of the representation, the R-2 vide Order dated 13.01.2024 rejected the representation on the ground that there are no justified grounds to revoke the order of detention. 9. The R-4 on behalf of the Central Government also rejected the detenue’s representation on the ground that no merit was found in the contentions made in the representation. It is also submitted that the rejection of the representation made by the detenue was issued only on 13.03.2025 which is also after a delay of about 2 (two) months and on this ground also the Detention Order is liable to be quashed. Subsequently, basing on the opinion of the Advisory Board that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenue under the PITNDPS Act, 1988, the State Government vide Order dated 12.03.2025 confirmed the detention of the detenue and further ordered that the detenue be detained for another period of 3 (three) months with effect from 13.03.2025 till 12.06.2025. 10. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a bail application on behalf of the detenue was filed before the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Kohima, however, the same was rejected on 04.12.2024. Thereafter, on expiry of the mandatory period of 180 days the default bail was granted to the detenue vide Order 06.02.2025; however, the detenue has not been released from custody till date because of the impugned Detention Order. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the petitioner has been arrested in connection with Narcotic Cell PS Case No. 10/2024 wherein all the co-accused have already been released in view of the quashing of their Detention Orders by this Court in W.P. (Crl.)/6/2025 and W.P.(Crl.)/4/2025 by order dated 04.04.2025. 12. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 3(2) of the PITNDPS Act was violated as the detaining authority has not produced any records or communication to prove that the Central Government was notified of the detention of the detenue within 10 (ten) days from the date of passing the Detention Order. 13. Learned counsel further submits that the detenue is from the Poumai community of the State of Manipur and she is an illiterate person. 13. Learned counsel further submits that the detenue is from the Poumai community of the State of Manipur and she is an illiterate person. She was not able to understand the contents of the Detention Order and the grounds of detention, which were in English; however, the detenue was not served or given the documents/Detention Order/grounds of detention in the language that she could understand or comprehend nor the grounds or reasons of her detention was explained to her in the language that she could understand. It is stated that the detenue can speak and understand only her native Poumai language, Meteilon and Nagamese. On this ground alone, the impugned Detention Order is liable to be set aside and quashed. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following cases: (i) Harikisan Versus State of Maharashtra & Others reported in MANU/SC/0154/1962 (ii) Mortuza Hussain Choudhary Versus The State of Nagaland & Others reported in MANU/SC/0320/2025 (iii) Baby Devassy Chully Alias Bobby Versus Union of India & Others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 531 (iv) Judgment delivered by this Court in W.P.(Crl.)/20/2024 dated 12.12.2024. 15. Relying on the above cited cases the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as to whether the detenue has to be detained or not is not reflected in the Detention Order. It is stated that there is no application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. It is not stated anywhere in the impugned Detention Order that there is likelihood of the detenue being released on bail. It is also submitted that the State respondents have not stated anywhere in their affidavit-in-opposition that the Detention Order or the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenue in the language that she understands whether it is Nagamese, Meiteilon or Poumai. In view of the law laid down in the cited cases, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned Detention Order dated 12.12.2024 and the impugned Confirmation Order dated 12.03.2025 may be quashed and set aside. 16. On the other hand the learned Government Advocate, Ms. Inaholi appearing on behalf of the State respondents has submitted that the sponsoring authority had proposed detention of the detenue under the PITNDPS Act taking into account the various aspects of the case pending against her which insisted her detention in the interest of the State. 16. On the other hand the learned Government Advocate, Ms. Inaholi appearing on behalf of the State respondents has submitted that the sponsoring authority had proposed detention of the detenue under the PITNDPS Act taking into account the various aspects of the case pending against her which insisted her detention in the interest of the State. All documents relating to the case of the detenue were placed before the detaining authority. After careful examination of all the established facts and circumstances, the detaining authority was satisfied that the detenue is a trafficker in narcotics and drugs and likely to indulge in similar activities unless prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of preventive detention. As such, the Detention Order was passed following all the procedures and with full application of mind. 17. Learned Government Advocate also submits that in compliance with Section 3(2) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 the representation of the detenue was communicated to the Central Government on the same day of passing the Detention Order dated 12.12.2024 by email as well as Speed Post, which is well within the stipulated time as prescribed in the Act. 18. Learned Government Advocate further submits that the sponsoring authority had clearly mentioned in paragraph-6 of the grounds of detention in its proposal for detention dated 11.12.2024 that the detenue was under judicial remand. Further, this fact was also reflected in paragraph-7 of the communication of grounds of detention passed by the detaining authority dated 12.12.2024 wherein it stated that ‘You are presently under judicial custody.’ Further, the rights and privileges of the detenue has not been interfered in any manner since her preventive detention has been done as per procedure established by law. As such, the question of non application of mind by the detaining authority does not arise. 19. Learned Government Advocate further submits that the detenue is an Class VII passed person and the Detention Order and communicated documents were explained and read out to the detenue in Nagamese, the language the detenue is stated to be familiar with and understood which was also certified by the detenue by appending her signature vide Acknowledgment Certificate dated 13.12.2024. As such it cannot be said that there has been violation of the procedural provisions of law. As such it cannot be said that there has been violation of the procedural provisions of law. Learned Government Advocate, therefore, submits that there is no illegality or violation of procedural requirements while passing the impugned Detention Order and the impugned Confirmation Order and therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned Government Advocate has also relied on the case of Baby Devassy (Supra), to support her contention that the detaining authority was conscious of the detenue being in judicial custody and, therefore, in paragraph-7 of the grounds of detention it was clearly mentioned that the detaining authority was in the knowledge that the detenue is in judicial custody. 20. Learned CGSC, Mr. Z.N. Ngullie submits on the basis of his affidavit- in-opposition filed on behalf of the R-4 that the Government of Nagaland had sent a report under Section 3(2) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 reporting the Detention Order dated 12.12.2024 on 12.12.2024 and the report was received by the R-4 on 10.01.2025. It is stated that the representation dated 07.01.2025 was placed before the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of India and upon examining all the material facts available on record, the representation was rejected as no merit was found in the contentions made in the representation. Accordingly, the rejection order was issued on 13.03.2025 and the decision of the Central Government was communicated to the detenue through the jail authorities vide email on 13.03.2025. 21. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the materials on record as well as the records produced by the learned Government Advocate. From the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, the following issues arise for consideration:- (i) Whether there was a delay on the part of the State Government in reporting the fact relating to the order of detention to the Central Government in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act? (ii) Whether the Detention Order and the subsequent Confirmation Order without reflecting that there is likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail is bad in law? (iii) Whether the Detention Order as well as the grounds of detention were communicated to the detenue in the language in which she understands as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution? 22. (ii) Whether the Detention Order and the subsequent Confirmation Order without reflecting that there is likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail is bad in law? (iii) Whether the Detention Order as well as the grounds of detention were communicated to the detenue in the language in which she understands as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution? 22. Upon going through the records produced by the Government Advocate it is seen that the report to the Central Government was sent on 12.12.2024, i.e., on the same day on which the Detention Order was issued. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was delay on the part of the State Government in reporting the facts regarding the order of detention in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act. 23. We have also perused the impugned Detention Order dated 12.12.2024 minutely and find that there is not even a whisper in the detention order that the detenue is in custody or that there is likelihood of the detenue being released on bail. In fact, in the grounds of detention as well as in the detention order there is no mention that there was a real possibility of the petitioner being released on bail and that further on release she would probably indulge in offences pertaining to the NDPS Act. The confirmation order dated 12.03.2025 is also silent on this aspect. In the case of Huidrom Konungjao Singh Versus State of Manipur & Others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 181 the Supreme Court had observed that if the Detention Order is challenged, the detaining authority has to specify to the court that the authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenue was already in custody and that there was reliable material before the said authority on the basis of which it could have reasons to believe that there was a real possibility of his release on bail and further, on being released he would probably indulge in activities which are prejudicial to public order for which the authority felt it necessary to prevent him from indulging in such activities and, therefore the Detention Order was passed. It was further observed that in case either of the facts does not exist, the detention order would stand vitiated. It was further observed that in case either of the facts does not exist, the detention order would stand vitiated. In the present case there is no mention whatsoever, as regards the requirement as laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Huidrom Singh (Supra). 24. A perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harikisan (Supra) and Mortuza (Supra) shows that the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that in order to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, the detenue must be given the grounds in a language which he can understand, and in a script which he can read, if he is a literate person. From a perusal of these two judgments of the Supreme Court, it is clear that furnishing grounds of arrest to the detenue in a language which the detenue understands is absolutely essential and non-supply of the grounds in such language is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In the case of Mortuza (Supra) the authorities had claimed that the contents of the orders and the grounds of detention were explained to the detenue in Nagamese and that the same would suffice. Such argument has been taken by the State respondents even in this case by submitting that the contents of the Detention Order and the grounds of detention were explained to the detenue in Nagamese. The Supreme Court in Mortuza (Supra) stated that such oral communication, even if true, did not amount to adequate communication in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 25. Without going into the other aspects raised by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution has been violated by the detaining authority and, therefore, the impugned Detention Order dated 12.12.2024 and the impugned Confirmation Order dated 12.03.2025 cannot stand the test of law and are accordingly, set aside and quashed. 26. The instant writ petition stands disposed. Return the records to the learned Government Advocate, Ms. Inaholi.