Unless 'exceptional circumstances', detenue can't dictate place of confinement: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has said that unless exceptional circumstances are made out, a detenue cannot dictate the place of his confinement. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said this while dismissing the petition filed by Irfan Pasha alias Batan, who is under detention at Central Prison in Ballari.

The petitioner, a resident of Mysuru, was kept under preventive detention pursuant to the April 6, 2026, order passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The petitioner did not challenge this order, but claimed that since he is from Mysuru district, he be transferred to either Krishnarajanagara Jail (KR Nagara Jail) or Nanjangud Jail. It was submitted that he is suffering from certain ailments, which requires periodic medical attention, and such facilities would be more accessible if he is lodged in a prison nearer to Mysuru District.

On the other hand, the government advocate submitted that petitioner has a chequered history of involvement in drug peddling activities since 2014. His detention at Ballari is a conscious administrative decision intended to sever his local network and prevent recurrence of illicit activities, it was submitted.

Justice Magadum noted that in matters of preventive detention, particularly under the PITNDPS Act, the legislative intent is to empower the State to take pre-emptive measures to curb illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which is regarded as a serious threat to public order and societal health.

“The material placed by the respondents (police) indicates that the petitioner is alleged to be involved in drug peddling activities over a period of time. The very object of placing a detenue in a prison away from his area of operation is to disrupt the chain of contacts, break the local nexus, and ensure that the preventive detention achieves its intended purpose. Administrative decisions regarding the place of detention are, therefore, not to be lightly interfered with, unless it is demonstrated that such placement is either arbitrary, mala fide, or results in denial of basic constitutional or statutory rights,” Justice Magadum said.

On ailments claimed by the petitioner, the court noted that no material of such compelling nature is placed on record to indicate that adequate medical facilities are unavailable at Central Prison, Bellary. In the absence of any substantiated material indicating denial of such care, a mere assertion of illness cannot be a ground to seek transfer as a matter of right, the court said.