Court’s Decision
The Manipur High Court set aside the detention order dated 27 February 2025, the approval order dated 8 March 2025, and the confirmation order dated 21 March 2025 issued under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, against the petitioner. The Court ordered the petitioner to be released forthwith unless required in any other case, holding that the detention order was vitiated due to non-supply of legible documents, non-application of mind, and violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, thereby rendering the detention illegal.
Facts
The petitioner was detained under the NSA by the District Magistrate, Kakching, on allegations of being the Vice-Chairman of the banned Kangleipak Communist Party and conducting extortion activities in Manipur, threatening public peace and security. FIRs were registered under the BNS and UA(P) Act, and the petitioner was in judicial custody. The petitioner argued that the detention was illegal, the documents supplied were illegible, and the authority failed to consider his representation for revocation and for supply of readable documents. The authorities contended that the detention was justified to prevent the petitioner from engaging in further unlawful activities and disturbing public order.
Issues
- Whether the detention order under the NSA was sustainable in law when the petitioner was already in judicial custody.
- Whether non-supply of legible documents violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution, affecting the petitioner’s right to make an effective representation.
- Whether the detention authority applied its mind properly while issuing the detention order.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that:
- The detention order violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution as the documents supplied were illegible, denying him the right to make an effective representation.
- The detention was based on stale and irrelevant grounds, reflecting non-application of mind.
- The petitioner was in judicial custody, and there was no material to show an imminent possibility of release warranting preventive detention.
- Reliance was placed on State of Manipur v. Buyamum Abdul Hanan (2022), Mehul Desai v. Joint Secretary (PITNDPS) (2024), Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur (2021), and other Supreme Court decisions holding that non-supply of legible documents vitiates detention orders.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents contended:
- The petitioner was engaged in activities prejudicial to public order and security, justifying preventive detention under the NSA.
- The detention was based on reliable information, FIRs, and reports indicating the petitioner’s involvement in extortion and anti-social activities.
- Preventive detention was necessary to prevent the petitioner from interfering with the investigation and from terrorizing the public if released on bail.
- The authorities followed due procedure under the NSA, and the detention order was legally sustainable.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined:
1. Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution safeguarding personal liberty while permitting preventive detention under specific conditions.
2. The principles laid down in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) and State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya (1951), affirming that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must comply with procedural safeguards.
3. State of Manipur v. Buyamum Abdul Hanan and Mehul Desai v. Joint Secretary holding that non-supply of legible copies of documents relied upon in detention orders violates Article 22(5).
4. Preventive detention cannot be used arbitrarily and must be justified with proximate, relevant material while maintaining constitutional safeguards.
Precedent Analysis
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27): Upheld the validity of preventive detention under Article 21 while emphasizing adherence to procedure established by law.
- State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya (AIR 1951 SC 157): Highlighted the limited scope of judicial review of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority but required compliance with procedural safeguards.
- State of Manipur v. Buyamum Abdul Hanan (2022): Held that supply of legible documents is essential for effective representation under Article 22(5).
- Mehul Desai v. Joint Secretary (2024): Emphasized that preventive detention is not punitive and illegible documents vitiate detention orders.
- Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur (2021): Addressed the scope of preventive detention during judicial custody and necessity of material for continued detention.
These cases guided the Court in assessing the legality of the detention order under NSA.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned:
- The petitioner’s right under Article 22(5) was violated due to the supply of illegible documents, depriving him of the opportunity to make an effective representation.
- The detaining authority failed to show proximate material justifying the need for detention while the petitioner was in judicial custody.
- Preventive detention cannot substitute for punitive detention and must comply with constitutional safeguards.
- Non-consideration of the petitioner’s representation and reliance on stale grounds reflected non-application of mind.
- Detention orders violating procedural safeguards and constitutional guarantees are illegal.
Short Note on Referred Cases
- State of Manipur v. Buyamum Abdul Hanan (2022) and Mehul Desai v. Joint Secretary (2024) – Emphasized the necessity of supplying legible documents for effective representation under Article 22(5).
- A.K. Gopalan (1950) and State of Bombay v. Atma Ram (1951) – Highlighted procedural safeguards under preventive detention laws.
- Sarabjeet Singh Mokha (2021) – Addressed detention during judicial custody, emphasizing material justification and procedural adherence.
These precedents guided the High Court in striking down the NSA detention order for procedural and constitutional violations.
Conclusion
- The High Court quashed the detention order dated 27 February 2025, the approval order dated 8 March 2025, and the confirmation order dated 21 March 2025 under the NSA.
- Directed the immediate release of the petitioner unless required in other cases.
- Held that non-supply of legible documents and non-application of mind rendered the detention illegal and unconstitutional.
Implications
- Reinforces the principle that preventive detention is an exceptional measure and must strictly adhere to constitutional safeguards.
- Establishes that non-supply of legible documents vitiates detention orders.
- Ensures accountability of detaining authorities, protecting individual liberty under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
FAQs
- Can preventive detention continue while a person is in judicial custody?
No, unless there is proximate, relevant material showing an imminent likelihood of release warranting detention, preventive detention cannot be used merely because the person is in judicial custody.
- Does non-supply of legible documents vitiate a detention order under the NSA?
Yes, the Manipur High Court held that non-supply of legible documents violates Article 22(5) as it deprives the detenu of the right to make an effective representation.
- What did the Manipur High Court decide regarding NSA detention in this case?
The Court set aside the NSA detention, holding it illegal due to non-supply of legible documents and non-application of mind by the detaining authority.