Section 9. Advisory Boards
For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (4) and sub-clause (c) of clause (7) of article 22 of the Constitution,
(a) the Central Government and each State Government shall, whenever necessary, constitute one or more Advisory Boards each of which shall consist of a Chairman and two other persons possessing the qualifications specified in sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of article 22 of the Constitution;
(b) save as otherwise provided in section 10, the appropriate Government shall, within five weeks from the date of detention of a person under a detention order, make a reference in respect thereof to the Advisory Board constituted under clause (a) to enable the Advisory Board to make the report under sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of article 22 of the Constitution;
(c) the Advisory Board to which a reference is made under clause (b) shall after considering the reference and the materials placed before it and after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the appropriate Government or from any person called for the purpose through the appropriate Government or from the person concerned, and if, in any particular case, it considers it essential so to do or if the person concerned desires to be heard in person, after hearing him in person, prepare its report specifying in a separate paragraph thereof its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned and submit the same within eleven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned;
(d) when there is a difference of opinion among the members forming the Advisory Board, the opinion of the majority of such members shall be deemed to be the opinion of the Board;
(e) a person against whom an order of detention has been made under this Act shall not be entitled to appear by any legal practitioner in any matter connected with the reference to the Advisory Board and the proceedings of the Advisory Board and its report, excepting that part of the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall be confidential;
(f) in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the appropriate Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith.
How courts have applied section 9
- Under Section 9(f), the government's power to confirm detention is discretionary and independent of the Advisory Board's opinion, but the government must independently consider the detenu's representation.1,2,3
- A detention order passed without recording a satisfaction that the detenu in custody was likely to be released on bail is vitiated.4,5
- Unreasonable and unexplained delay between proposal, order, and execution snaps the live and proximate link and vitiates the detention.6,7,8
- Section 9(f) can be exercised only once on the basis of the Advisory Board's opinion; a further extension on an administrative report is void.9
- The five-day outer limit for communicating grounds of detention runs from the date of detention, not the date of passing the order.10
- Failure to furnish translated copies of grounds or the complete record to the detenu infringes Article 22(5).11,12
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here mostly concern the validity of preventive detention orders passed under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988, and their confirmation under Section 9(f), with courts frequently quashing orders where the authority failed to record the requisite satisfaction or where delays were unexplained. Several orders were set aside because the detention order was passed without recording a finding that the detenu, already in custody, was likely to be released on bail, despite the grounds mentioning custody. Other orders were quashed where the government confirmed detention under Section 9(f) without independently considering the detenu's representation, a requirement held to be a constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) even though the power to confirm is discretionary and independent of the Advisory Board's opinion.4,5,1,2,3
A recurring ground for setting aside detention orders was unexplained or excessive delay. Courts held that a delay between the proposal and the detention order, or between the detention order and its execution, snapped the 'live and proximate link' and vitiated the subjective satisfaction, unless adequately explained. Delays were also found to vitiate the order when the failure to provide translated copies of the grounds or the complete record to the detenu infringed Article 22(5) and the safeguards of Section 3(3). Conversely, delay was not fatal where it was satisfactorily explained by the time needed for authorities to reach a genuine subjective satisfaction after due inquiry, and the five-day outer limit for communicating grounds was held to run from the date of detention, not the date of the order.6,7,8,11,12,13,10
On the merits of the detention, courts examined whether the alleged activity was prejudicial to public order and whether the authority's satisfaction was genuine. Detention was upheld where the detenu's bail history and habitual offences justified the conclusion of a real possibility of release on bail, and where pending cases involving recoveries supplied a live and proximate link. However, detention was quashed where the grounds rested on a recovery that could ground criminal prosecution but was not prejudicial to public order, where the detaining authority failed to address why ordinary criminal law was inadequate, or where it omitted to consider a relevant judicial finding that vitiated the satisfaction. One court held that Section 9(f) can be exercised only once on the basis of the Advisory Board's opinion, and that a further extension based on an administrative report is without authority of law.14,15,16,11,17,9
The role of the Advisory Board itself was also addressed. One petition was disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the Advisory Board, which had already issued notice for a hearing. In another case, despite the Advisory Board opining that detention was justifiable, the court held that the government's power to confirm under Section 9(f) is independent, and the failure to consider the representation independently was fatal. A detenu is not entitled to appear by a legal practitioner in Advisory Board proceedings, but is entitled to a copy of the opinion part of the report.18,1,10
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 9
The Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) quashed an extension order dated 28.04.2026 that continued preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act beyond 28.04.2026 based only on a police report.
AllowedOpenRajender @ Yusuf @ Sachin Vs Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Pitndps Unit
Writ Petition (Criminal)W.P.(CRL) 3515/2025, Decided 22.04.2026 (Navin Chawla & Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.; oral judgment by Navin Chawla, J.): PITNDPS preventive detention quashed. Detention Order dated 13.05.2025 (Joint Secretary, Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act) as confirmed on 29.07.2025 (Deputy Secretary, Section 9(f)) set aside because, though the…
Writ Petition (Criminal)OpenPITNDPS preventive detention; Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act 1988 detention order quashed; Section 9(f) confirmation; Article 226 writ; live and proximate link broken by unexplained delay in passing detention order; non-consideration of Section 50 NDPS Act twin-conditions violation as bail ground;
Writ Petition (Criminal)OpenPreventive detention; PITNDPS Act 1988 Sections 3(1), 3(3), 9(b), 9(f), 11, 12; Article 22(5) constitutional safeguard; live and proximate link; unexplained delay in passing/executing detention order snaps nexus; staleness of material; non-supply of detention proposal; effective representation;
AllowedOpenMithilesh Tiwari Vs Union of India through the Zonal Director Narcotics Control Bureau Ranchi
Outcome: AllowedMithilesh Tiwari v. Union of India (through Zonal Director, NCB Ranchi) and PITNDPS authorities (Joint Secretary & Deputy Secretary, Dept. of Revenue), W.P.(Cr.) (DB) No.792 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; coram Sujit Narayan Prasad & Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.; C.A.V. 17.02.2026, pronounced 12/03/2026.
AllowedOpenBipin Bihari Singh @ Dipu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Home , Government of Jharkhand
Outcome: DismissedJharkhand High Court, W.P.(Cr.)(DB) No.662 of 2025, decided 06/01/2026 (C.A.V. 08.12.2025). Preventive detention under Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act 1988; unreasonable delay between detention proposal (memo no.
DismissedOpen
Show 6 more
Kuleshwar Yadav Alias Kaleshwar Yadav Alias Koleshwar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand
Outcome: DismissedJharkhand HC (DB), W.P.(Cr.) (DB) No.121 of 2026, decided 21/07/2026 — Kuleshwar Yadav @ Kaleshwar Yadav @ Koleshwar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors: preventive detention under S. 3(1) PITNDPS Act, 1988; effect of bail and post-order acquittals on validity of detention;
DismissedOpenSmt Subhadra Debbarma for and on behalf of accused Rupan Miah Vs The State of Tripura and Ors.
Outcome: DismissedTripura High Court, W.P. (Crl.) 5/2025, decided 03.02.2026 (Dr. T. Amarnath Goud & S. Datta Purkayastha, JJ.), upholds preventive detention under Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act of Rupan Miah at the instance of his wife Subhadra Debbarma;
DismissedOpenPunjab & Haryana High Court (CWP-1115-2025, decided orally on January 17, 2025 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari): Gurdeep Singh petitioned for quashing of a preventive-detention order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and…
DisposedOpenPIT NDPS Act preventive detention — High Court of Karnataka, WPHC No.103 of 2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:47947-DB), DB (K.S. Mudagal & Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.), decided 20-11-2025. Keywords: Section 3(1) PIT NDPS Act; Section 9(f) confirmation of detention; Section 9(b) Advisory Board reference;
DisposedOpenW.P.(Habeas Corpus) No.102/2025 (High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; oral order dt. 26.11.2025, per Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.S. Mudagal, bench with Hon'ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik T): Petitioner-wife of detenue Krishna Achari @ Krishna Jalagara sought quashing of preventive detention ordered under Section 3(1),…
AllowedOpenPreventive detention – PIT NDPS Act – Confirmation order under S.9(f) – Habeas corpus under Art. 226. Held: (i) The Government's power to confirm detention under S.9(f) is independent of the Advisory Board's opinion ('may' vs 'shall');
DisposedOpen
Shaikh Zibraeel @ Pinkey Shaikh Rajjak Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya Mumbai
Outcome: DismissedIn a criminal writ petition, the Nagpur High Court upheld a preventive detention order against the petitioner under the PITNDPS Act. The court held that the detaining authority correctly exercised its power given the petitioner's continuous involvement in drug trafficking and the real possibility of future bail…
DismissedOpenVishal Kumar Th Payal Vs Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary to Government Home Department Jammu and Others
Outcome: DisposedHabeas corpus petition under Article 226 challenging preventive detention under S. 3 PITNDPS Act r/w SRO-247 — detention order PITNDPS-09/2025 dated 01.03.2025 by Divisional Commissioner, Rail-Head, Jammu — HELD, quashed and detenu (who had suffered about 10 months' detention) directed to be released: (i) detaining…
DisposedOpenPITNDPS Act 1988 preventive detention set aside; detention order passed while reciting detenue in judicial custody despite release on bail on 27.05.2025; no past antecedents of drug trafficking; mechanical exercise of power without application of mind; arbitrary grounds of detention; Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act 1988;
DisposedOpenHabeas corpus challenge to a PIT NDPS preventive detention order. The court found a 45-day unexplained delay between the detention order and its execution broke the live proximity link, vitiated the subjective satisfaction, quashed the detention and directed release of the detenue.
DisposedOpenGauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 16/2025, decided 25.09.2025 (Manish Choudhury & Yarenjungla Longkumer, JJ.; judgment by M. Choudhury, J.). Habeas corpus writ under Article 226 against preventive detention of Rockson Poumai under Section 3(1) PIT-NDPS Act, 1988 (Detention Order 09.05.2025;
DisposedOpenPIT-NDPS Act preventive detention quashed; Article 22(5) Constitution; communication of grounds of detention in language understood by detenu; Assamese translation of detention papers; live link and proximity doctrine; unexplained delay in passing detention order; subjective satisfaction;
DisposedOpen
Show 4 more
Rampravesh Gupta Alias Ramu Saw@ Ram Pravesh Saw @ Ram Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary
Outcome: AllowedW.P.(Cr.) (DB) No.133 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; C.A.V. on 17.07.2025, pronounced on 08/08/2025; coram Sujit Narayan Prasad and Rajesh Kumar, JJ.
AllowedOpenBanti Mahtha,Alias Sonu Mahthaa Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand
Outcome: AllowedJharkhand HC (Division Bench), pronounced 08.08.2025 (reserved/C.A.V. 17.07.2025), W.P.(Cr.) Nos.933 & 1001 of 2024: preventive detention orders under the PIT NDPS Act, 1988 (References No.18/PIT NDPS-25/2024-3616 and No.18/PIT NDPS-10/2024-2402, Principal Secretary, Home, Jail & Disaster Management Dept., Govt.
AllowedOpenSikandar Mahtha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand
Outcome: AllowedPIT NDPS Act 1988 preventive detention quashed; subjective satisfaction vitiated by non-placement of acquittal and bail orders; more-than-six-month delay in executing detention orders (custody 25.12.2024 / 24.10.2024); Section 8 absconding procedure not invoked; Article 21 and Article 22(5);
AllowedOpenRam Pravesh Roy Vs The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue, North Block
Outcome: DismissedPIT NDPS Act 1988; preventive detention; habeas corpus; CR. WJC No.1007 of 2025; Ram Pravesh Roy; detention order 27.11.2024 Annexure P1; confirmation order 07.03.2025 Annexure P6; Advisory Board; sufficient cause; Section 3(3) service of grounds fifteen days; grounds served 06.01.2025; Section 9(f);
DismissedOpen