Allahabad High Court on NSA and black-marketing: a one-year detention cannot be justified merely because the special law allows six months, and where black-marketing is the main allegation, the special Act must be used.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Prayagraj: Setting aside National Security Act detention orders against four men held over the alleged transport of urea for sale at a higher price, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that a black-marketing allegation attracts the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 and not the NSA. It allowed four habeas corpus petitions [Mohammad Haroon v. Union of India and 5 Others].
The Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev quashed the detention orders dated May 23, May 29 and July 12, 2026, and directed that the petitioners be released immediately unless they are wanted in another case.
Where the Court drew the line
Involvement of essential commodities, the Court held, does not automatically bring the NSA into play for every case of their unlawful trade or transport. The Act may be justified where supplies are physically obstructed, for instance by a blockade or the destruction of roads serving fair-price shops, or by a similar act that physically stops the flow of goods.
Where the main allegation is black-marketing, the special Act must prevail. The Court described the line between the two laws as “thin but real”, and said that invoking the NSA for a one-year detention only because the special Act allows a maximum of six months would be a “perversion of the law” and liable to be set aside.
The Suraj Pal Sahu argument
The petitioners argued that the NSA could not be invoked where a special statute specifically governs preventive detention for black-marketing, and that the special Act caps detention at six months. The State relied on the Supreme Court’s 1986 ruling in Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra.
The Court distinguished Suraj Pal Sahu, which concerned the theft and sale of railway materials such as tracks and sleepers that could disrupt an essential public service, and was not a black-marketing case. Here, the allegation was the transport of fertiliser, in connivance with officials, for sale at a higher price, which the Court treated as black-marketing.
How the case began
Police intercepted three trucks, each carrying 525 bags of IFFCO urea. The drivers had no bills or vouchers for the transport and said the fertiliser belonged to Mohammad Haroon, who was in a car accompanying the third truck and was taken into custody.
According to the police, Haroon stated that the fertiliser was worth about Rs 5.50 lakh, that he paid Rs 4.50 lakh in cash to one person and Rs 1 lakh digitally to another accused, and that officials were present when it was loaded at a PCF godown. The police alleged that the fertiliser was being moved for sale in the open market at a higher price, for unlawful private gain and at a loss to the State.
After an FIR was registered, the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, passed NSA detention orders against four persons under Section 3(2) of the Act, and the Advisory Board rejected their representations. These allegations are untested, and the Court has not ruled on them.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
Case Details: Mohammad Haroon v. Union of India and 5 Others, Allahabad High Court. Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev. Case number and date of judgment not available at the time of writing.
Appearances: Not available at the time of writing.