Anil K.Narendran, J.

1. The petitioner, who is the wife of one Muhammed Ajmal, who is under preventive detention at the Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, pursuant to Ext.P1 order of detention dated 28.04.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, invoking the provisions under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), has filed this writ petition, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order of detention dated 28.04.2026 and Ext.P4 order 22.06.2026 of the 1st respondent State of Kerala, whereby Ext.P1 order of detention was confirmed, invoking the provisions under Section 9(f) of the PITNDPS Act; and a writ of habeas corpus commanding the 6th respondent Superintendent of Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

2. On 07.08.2026, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed the following order;

                  “By the order dated 07.07.2026 in W.P.(Crl.)No.908 of 2026, after referring to the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), which is pari materia to sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act), this Court held that in a W.P.(Crl) filed, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order of detention issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of PITNDPS Act by the State Government or any officer of the State Government, the Central Government is a necessary party. In such writ petitions, the Union of India, represented by the Secretary (Revenue), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Kartavya Bhavan-I, New Delhi-110001, shall be arrayed as a respondent.

                  2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file an application for impleadment.”

3. On 11.08.2026, I.A.No.1 of 2026 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to implead the Union of India, represented by the Secretary (Revenue), as the additional 8th respondent in this writ petition, was allowed. The learned Government Pleader and also the learned Central Government Counsel sought time to get instructions and file statement/counter affidavit on behalf of the 3rd respondent Deputy Commissioner of Police and the additional 8th respondent Union of India, respectively.

4. On 01.09.2026, when this writ petition was taken up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader sought further time to get instructions and file statement/counter affidavit.

5. A counter affidavit dated 31.08.2026 has been filed on behalf of the additional 8th respondent. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.2 of 2026 seeking an order to accept Ext.P17 hearing notice dated 01.06.2026 issued by the Secretary, Advisory Board, PITNDPS, as an additional document. Along with a memo dated 01.09.2026 of the learned Senior Government Pleader, a statement on behalf of the 3rd respondent Deputy Commissioner of Police is placed on record. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 07.09.2026.

6. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 7 and the learned Central Government Counsel for the additional 8th respondent.

7. The learned Government Pleader has made available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P1 order of detention. The said file contains the opinion of the Advisory Board dated 18.06.2026 at Page No. A29, wherein the Advisory Board has opined that there is no sufficient cause for detention of the detenu, and the detenu is entitled to his release. The opinion dated 18.06.2026 of the Advisory Board reads thus;

                  “1. The Board is of the opinion that there is no sufficient cause for detention of the detenu, namely Sri. Muhammad Ajmal T., S/o. Thahakutti, Kuttiyil Kizhakkethil House, Krishnapuram Village, Kayamkulam Area, Alappuzha District and the detenu is entitled to his release.

                  2. The detenu shall be released from custody if not wanted in any other case.

                  3. The detaining authority is not precluded from reckoning the present cases for further action, if any, according to the law, if he continues to be person as defined under Section 2(e) of PITNDPS Act.”

8. However, in Ext.P4 order of confirmation dated 22.06.2026 issued by the 1st respondent State under Section 9(f) of the PITNDPS Act, it is stated that the Advisory Board in its report dated 18.06.2026 has opined that there are sufficient reasons for the continued detention of the detenue under the PITNDPS Act and that the order of detention will be continued for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention under Section 11 of the said Act. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that order read thus;

                  “3) As required under Section 9(b) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act of 1988, the case of Sri Muhammad Ajmal T, S/o Thahakutti, Kuttiyil Kizhakethil House, Krishnapuram Village, Kayamkulam Area, Alappuzha District was referred to Advisory Board, the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act of 1988, as per letter read as 3rd paper above. The Advisory Board heard the detenu and the Sponsoring Authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kochi City on 10th June 2026 through hybrid mode. After hearing and perusing the relevant records, the Advisory Board in its report read as 4th paper above has opined that there are sufficient reasons for the continued detention of Sri Muhammad Ajmal T, S/o Thahakutti, Kuttiyil Kizhakethil House, Krishnapuram Village, Kayamkulam Area, Alappuzha District, under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act of 1988.

                  4) Having examined the report together with the opinion of the Advisory Board and the representations submitted by the detenu's sister with full application of mind, Government hereby confirm the order of detention, issued against Sri Muhammad Ajmal T, S/o Thahakutti, Kuttiyil Kizhakethil House, Krishnapuram Village, Kayamkulam Area, Alappuzha District under clause (f) of Section 9 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act of 1988, read as 1st paper above and order that the said detention will be continued for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention, u/s 11 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act of 1988.”

                  (underline supplied)

9. Section 9 of the PITNDPS Act deals with Advisory Boards. As per clause (a) of Section 9, for the purpose of sub-clause (a) of clause (4) and sub-clause (c) of clause 7 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, 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. Clause (b) of Section 9 provides for a reference by the appropriate Government to the Advisory Board, within five weeks from the date of detention of a person under a detention order, and sub-clauses (c) to (e) deal with the procedure to be followed by the Advisory Board on such a reference.

10. As per the mandate of clause (f) of Section 9 of the PITNDPS Act, 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.

11. In view of the statutory mandate of clause (f) of Section 9 of the PITNDPS Act, the 1st respondent State committed a grave error in confirming Ext.P1 order of detention dated 28.04.2026 by Ext.P4 order dated 22.06.2026. In view of the recommendation made by the Advisory Board in its report dated 18.06.2026, the detenue is entitled to be released from custody, if his custody is not wanted in any other case. As stated in paragraph 12 of the statement of facts of this writ petition, as on the date of passing Ext.P1 order of detention, the detenue was already in judicial custody in connection with Crime No.2944/2016 of Kayamkulam Police Station, since his application for bail was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Mavelikkara, by Ext.P8 order dated 09.03.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.5 of 2026 in S.C.No.448 of 2019 and the bail application filed before this Court as B.A.No.1817 of 2026 was dismissed as withdrawn by Ext.P9 order dated 01.04.2026. The bail applications filed by the detenue as B.A.No.1781 of 2026 and B.A.No.2402 of 2026 in respect of Crime No.1305/2026 of Kayamkulam Police Station ended in dismissal by Ext.P10 order dated 31.03.2026 and Ext.P11 order dated 25.05.2026 of this Court.

12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P1 order of detention dated 28.04.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department and Ext.P4 order of confirmation dated 22.06.2026 of the 1st respondent State. The judicial custody of the detenue in Crime No.2944/2016 and Crime No.1305/2016 of Kayamkulam Police Station shall continue till he is released on bail in those crimes by the competent court.

13. It is for the 1st respondent State to conduct an enquiry into the circumstances in which Ext.P4 order of confirmation was passed, without noticing the recommendation made by the Advisory Board in its report dated 18.06.2026, and take necessary action, in accordance with law, against those who are responsible for such an omission.

The original file relating to Ext.P1 order of detention handed over by the learned Government Pleader is returned.