Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[2] Factual matrix in a nutshell is that the writ petitioner was arrested on 17.04.2025 and an FIR was lodged on the same day, this FIR dated 17.04.2025 bears No. 0076 and it is on the file of Thoubal Police Station in Thoubal District, Manipur qua alleged offences under Sections 17, 20 of 'The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967)' ['UAPA' for the sake of brevity] and Section 5 of Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959). The writ petitioner was produced before jurisdictional Court i.e. Special Judge (NIA, Thoubal) and remanded to judicial custody. While the writ petitioner remained incarcerated, 'Superintendent of police, Thoubal' who shall be referred to as 'Sponsoring Authority' sent 2 (two) communications, one dated 02.05.02025 and another dated 16.05.2026 bearing reference No. P a g e 2 | 16 9/37/2025/SP-TBL/2493 and No. 9/37/2025/SP-TBL/2728 respectively requesting R-1 to make a detention order qua writ petitioner under the 'National Security Act, 1980 (65 of 1980)' ['NSA' for the sake of brevity]. Acting on these two communications from the sponsoring authority, R- 1 (detaining authority) made the impugned preventive detention order. Thereafter, R-1 made grounds of detention dated 23.05.2025 bearing No. Cril. NSA Case No. 4 of 2025 and this Court is informed that the grounds of detention was served on the writ petitioner/detenu on the same day (23.05.2025) in the Central Jail Sajiwa, Imphal East, Manipur

- 795114 where the detenu is now lodged.

[3] To capture facts which are necessary to appreciate this order, this Court deems it appropriate to write that R-1 (detaining authority) is an officer on whom powers have been conferred by the State Government vide Section 3(3) of NSA. This means that the impugned detention order made by R-1 shall remain in force only for 12 days but post 12 days it will operate subject to approval by State Government. The State Government approved the impugned preventive detention vide an order dated 31.05.2025 bearing reference No. H- 1401/5/2025-HD.HD. This means that the impugned preventive detention order continued to operate beyond 12 days and to be noted, it continues to operate. Thereafter State Government placed the matter before Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of NSA, the Advisory Board sat on 18.06.2025 and gave a report dated 21.06.2025 to the P a g e 3 | 16 effect that there are sufficient grounds for detention of the writ petitioner. Acting on such report of the Advisory Board, State Government vide an order dated 02.07.2025 bearing reference No. H- 1401/5/2025 - HD.HD confirmed the impugned preventive detention order by exercising powers under Section 12 of NSA. Captioned WP has been filed in this Court on 27.11.2025 which means that the impugned preventive detention order dated 20.05.2025 made by R-1 (detaining authority), approval of the State Government dated 31.05.2025 (under Section 3(4) of NSA) and confirmation order dated 02.07.2025 (under Section 12 of NSA) are all under challenge in the captioned WP. [4] Notwithstanding very many averments/grounds in the captioned WP, Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned senior advocate instructed by Md. Fakhruddin, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order, approval order and confirmation order on 2 (two) points. These two points were resisted by Mr. Th. Vashum, learned State counsel appearing for R-1, 2 & 4. Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) for respondent No. 3 is before this Court. To be noted, R-3 is only a formal authority.

[8] In the case on hand, we tested subjective satisfaction of detaining authority qua imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail applying aforesaid principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as touchstone. We find that the subjective satisfaction is clearly flawed on two grounds viz., detaining authority not having applied its mind at all and subjective satisfaction being arrived at without being grounded on any material which are of rationally probative value. The reason is, the impugned preventive detention order is dated 20.05.2025, P a g e 6 | 16 the grounds of impugned preventive detention is dated 23.05.2025 but in the grounds also in paragraph No. 8, the detaining authority has recorded that the hearing of detenu's bail application (Bail application dated 25.04.2025) is fixed (for hearing in Trial Court) on 21.05.2025. This means that while making the grounds of impugned preventive detention order on 23.05.2025, the detaining authority has not applied its mind and examined what happened to the bail application on 21.05.2025. To be noted, as regards the two letters from the sponsoring authority i.e., Superintendent of Police, Thoubal District (alluded to supra) in the first letter dated 02.05.2025 it has been mentioned by sponsoring authority that the bail application is listed in Trial Court on 06.05.2025 and in the second letter dated 16.05.2025 the sponsoring authority has categorically mentioned that the date of hearing of bail application in Trial Court is 21.05.2025. In this view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the detaining authority making grounds of detention on 23.05.2025 without ascertaining what happened to the bail application in the hearing on 21.05.2025 is clearly a case of not applying its mind which is Test (a) qua justiciability of subjective satisfaction set out in Ameena Begum an adumbration which has been set out supra. To be noted, ultimately, the bail application came to be rejected by the jurisdictional NIA Court on 30.05.2025 but we are not delving into this as it is post impugned preventive detention order though it is prior to approval of the State P a g e 7 | 16 Government (under Section 3(4) of NSA) on 31.05.2025 and confirmation by the State Government on 02.07.2025 (under Section 12 of NSA). As regards material which are of rationally probative value, there is no whisper either in the impugned preventive detention order or in the grounds of detention as to any material which points towards imminent possibility of bail being granted to detenu. It is also to be noted that the learned State counsel is unable to point out that there was any such material before the detaining authority. Therefore subjective satisfaction qua imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail has been arrived at by the detaining authority without the same being grounded on any material of rationally probative value which leads this Court to the inevitable conclusion that the impugned preventive detention order is vitiated by Test (f) qua Ameena Begum which has been set out supra. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned preventive detention order suffers from the vice of arriving at subjective satisfaction qua imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail without application of mind and without basing the same on any material of rationally probative value.

[9] This takes this Court to the second point/ground. Adverting to the grounds of preventive detention dated 23.05.2025 and more particularly paragraph No. 10 thereat, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the detaining authority has written in P a g e 8 | 16 the grounds that the detenu has a right to make three representations (to three different entities) but has fixed time frames for making of all three representations. This, according to learned senior counsel, is an infraction of sacrosanct right embedded /enshrined in Article 22, more particularly, Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. On a careful reading of the grounds of detention and more particularly paragraph No. 10 thereat that the detaining authority has referred to three representations and they are : (a) representation to the detaining authority, (b) representation to the State Government and (c) representation to Central Government but has also written that the representation to the detaining authority should be made within twelve days from the date of detention and representation to the State and Central Governments should be made within three weeks from the date of detention. This is infraction of sacrosanct principle underpinning Article 22(5) of Constitution of India is learned senior counsel's say. Responding to this argument, Mr. Th. Vashum, learned State counsel submitted that the impugned preventive detention order has been made by an officer within the meaning of Section 3(3) of NSA and therefore the same will remain in force only for twelve days unless it is approved by the State Government under Section 3(4) of NSA and therefore, this twelve days time fame was fixed. It was further submitted by learned State counsel that State Government should place the representation before the Advisory Board (under Section 10 of NSA) within three weeks P a g e 9 | 16 from the date of detention and therefore, three weeks time frame was fixed with regard to representation to State Government. [10] This Court carefully considered the rival submissions qua second point/ground. Before setting out our dispositive reasoning on the second point, we deem it appropriate to write that in a long line of authorities starting from 'Union of India vs. Paul Manikum' reported in (2003) 8 SCC 342, Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right of a detenu to make a 'representation' within the meaning of Article 22(5) of Constitution of India implies the right of making an 'effective representation'. It has also been made clear that a detenu qua a impugned preventive detention order is entitled to have his representation considered as expeditiously/at the earliest. The significant clincher is, neither the Constitution nor the long line of authorities have either provided for or justified fixing of time frames for making such representations. It comes to light that in 'Premlata Sharma (Smt.) vs. District Magistrate, Mathura & Ors.' reported in (1998) 4 SCC 260, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that there can be no period of limitation regarding exercise of right of the detenu to make a representation and corresponding obligation of the Central Government to consider the same for deciding upon the question of order of detention as such a right of a detenu and obligation of State subsist so long as the preventive detention order continues. To be noted, on facts, Premlata also arose under NSA, a preventive P a g e 10 | 16 detention order made under NSA was assailed and the issue that fell for consideration is refusal to send detenu's representation to Central Government on the ground that the power of the revocation of a detention order is vested only in the State Government under Section 14 of NSA. It is in this context that in Premlata, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the ratio that the right of detenu to make a representation and corresponding obligation of the Government to consider the same expeditiously (at the earliest) subsist so long as the preventive detention order operates/detention continues. In the case on hand, therefore, fixing of twelve days time frame qua representation to the detaining authority and fixing of three weeks time frame for representations to the State and Central Governments is clearly flawed and unacceptable. On an extreme demurer, even if the argument of learned State counsel that the time frames were fixed as impugned preventive detention order will be valid only for twelve days unless approved by the State Government and the State Government has a responsibility to place the representation before the Advisory Board within three weeks is accepted, the same does not come to the aid of learned State counsel in his effort to defend the impugned preventive detention order. The reasons are, as regards twelve days, though there may be some semblance of justification, there is absolutely no justification as regards fixing three weeks time frame for representation to the State Government. The reason is, Section 10 of NSA captioned 'Reference to P a g e 11 | 16 Advisory Board' makes it clear that the appropriate Government shall within 3 weeks from the date of detention of a person place before the Advisory Board, the grounds on which order has been made and representation, if any. Section 10 of NSA reads as follows :