Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland (2025) - Case Analysis

Why in the Spotlight? - Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland (2025)

Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland (2025) case gained attention as it raised serious concerns regarding preventive detention especially the right to fair communication of detention orders. The Supreme Court analysed whether the government followed proper procedures before detaining individuals without trial. It also highlighted the balance between national security and personal liberty. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgments.

Introduction of Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland (2025)

The case of Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland (2025) centred around the preventive detention of Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and his wife, Adaliu Chawang under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the detention orders complied with constitutional safeguards under Article 21 and Article 22 of Indian Constitution.

Download Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland PDF

The case Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland (2025) centres around the preventive detention of the Petitioner under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The main issue concerns the validity of the detention order, especially whether the detenu was provided with adequate grounds of detention in a language he understood, as provided by Article 22(5) of Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court determined whether the detention order was arbitrary and whether procedural safeguards were violated. The following are the brief facts of Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland -

Preventive Detention Orders:

• Authorities kept J Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and his spouse Adaliu Chawang into preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act).
• The bureaucratic machinery produced detention orders dated May 30, 2024. The Special Secretary in the Home Department of the Government of Nagaland issued these directives.

Incident Leading to Detention:

• On 5th April, 2024, the police apprehended three individuals: Nehkhoi Guite (driver), Hoinu @ Vahboi and Chinneilhing Haokip @ Neopi in Khuzama village when they were traveling in a Mahindra TUV vehicle.
• Upon searching the vehicle, the police found 239 grams of heroin concealed in 20 soap cases inside the gear lever cover.
• Following this, an FIR was registered on 6th April, 2024 at the Narcotics Police Station under Sections 22(b) and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Implicating Statements & Arrest of the Detenus:

During questioning, Chinneilhing Haokip @ Neopi, revealed that she had previously supplied heroin to Adaliu Chawang and was paid by her. Because of this information the police arrested Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang on April 12th, 2024, in Dimapur. After their arrest, they were taken into judicial custody.

Initiation of Preventive Detention Proceedings:

• The Investigating Officer proposed preventive detention for both detenus.
• The Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Nagaland, forwarded the proposals to the Special Secretary, Home Department.
• The Special Secretary issued detention orders on 30th May, 2024 and directed that the detenus be kept in Dimapur District Jail for an initial period of three months.

Challenge to Detention Orders:

• The individuals in detention argued that they received the orders in a language they couldn't comprehend.
  • The detention orders did not justify the need for preventive detention, as they were already in judicial custody.
  • The orders were passed mechanically and without application of mind, violating their fundamental rights under Article 21 of Constitution.
• The Special Secretary turned down their appeals and the Chief Secretary of the Government of Nagaland also uphold with this rejection.

Review by Advisory Board & Extension of Detention:

• The Advisory Board, Nagaland, reviewed the case and submitted its report and concluded that there was sufficient cause for their detention.
• The Government of India (PITNDPS Division, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance) rejected their representations.
• Their detention was further extended.

Grant of Bail but Continued Detention:

• The detenus were granted statutory bail by the Special Judge, NDPS, Kohima, Nagaland, on 28th November, 2024 as the Prosecution failed to file a charge sheet within the specified time period.
• However, they remained in custody due to the preventive detention orders.

Challenge Before the Gauhati High Court & Supreme Court Appeal:

• Mortuza Hussain Choudhary, Ashraf's brother, filed an appeal there to contest these orders.
• However, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
• Aggrieved by this the detenus then appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of High Court.

Issue addressed in Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland (2025)

The main issue in case of Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland (2025) was the legality of the preventive detention orders issued under Section 3(1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 (PITNDPS Act) against Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and his wife, Adaliu Chawang. The Supreme Court also examined other important issues which are as follows:

• Violation of Constitutional Safeguards: Whether the detention orders complied with Article 22(5) of the Constitution which directs that detainees must be informed of the grounds of detention and given the opportunity to make a representation.
• Language Barrier in Communication: The Supreme Court in Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland also examined whether the grounds of detention were communicated to the detainees in a language they understood.
• Application of Mind by the Detaining Authority: The Court analysed whether the detention orders were passed after due consideration of facts or issued mechanically.
• Scope of Preventive Detention: The Court carefully checked to make sure the required legal rules and procedures were followed correctly when they issued the detention orders. 

Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution were crucial in the Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland case in 2025. Here's a deeper look at these significant sections:

Article 21 of Indian Constitution: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 of Indian Constitution deals with protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Article 22 of Indian Constitution: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

Article 22 deals with the protection against detention and arrest in certain cases. The following are the objectives of the Article 22-

• Prevent arbitrary arrest and detention
• Ensure individuals are informed of the grounds for arrest
• Protect the right to legal representation
• Prevent prolonged detention without trial
• Ensure fair treatment during custody
• Provide checks on state power

Judgment and Impact of Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland (2025)

In the case of Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs The State of Nagaland (2025) the Supreme Court of India quashed the preventive detention orders against Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and his wife, Adaliu Chawang, who had been detained under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The Court highlighted that preventive detention is an extremely harsh action. It removes a person's freedom without giving them a trial or proving them guilty of any crime.

The Supreme Court noted that the detention orders were issued without proper application of mind and that the grounds for detention were not adequately communicated to the detainees in a language they understood, infringing Article 22(5) of Indian Constitution.

Thus, the Apex Court in Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland set aside the decision of Gauhati High Court. The Court ordered the immediate release of Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang

Conclusion

In Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland (2025) the Supreme Court quashed the preventive detention orders. The Court held that they were issued without proper application of mind and violated fundamental rights under Article 22(5). The Court highlighted that preventive detention is an exceptional measure and must strictly adhere to constitutional safeguards.