Detenu's Representation Ignored By Advisory Board Vitiates Preventive Detention: Manipur High Court
The Manipur High Court held that the Advisory Board proceeded on the incorrect assumption that the detenu had not submitted any representation, despite a valid representation being made earlier. This resulted in the detenu being deprived of his valuable right to have his case considered at a crucial stage of review.
The Court observed that such omission directly infringed the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(5), as well as the statutory mandate under Section 10 of the National Security Act, which vitiated the detention process.
Further the Court remarked that there cannot be any time limit imposed for making representations, and that the right to representation continues as long as the detention remains in force; any artificial time restriction undermines this right.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mr.M. Sundar And Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh remarked that: “……the Hon'ble Advisory Board has proceed on the basis that the detenu has not made any representation. This means that the detenu has lost his valuable constitutional right and there was a clear infraction of sacrosanct constitutional right enshrined in Article 22(5) read with sanctified statutory right codified vide Section 10 of NSA.”
Background:
The case arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of the detenu who had been arrested for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and was already in judicial custody. While he was in custody, the District Magistrate, passed a preventive detention order under the National Security Act.
Later, the detention was approved and confirmed by the State Government. The petitioner contended that the constitutional safeguards available to the detenu had been violated.
The petitioner further contended that he had submitted representation to the detaining authority and expressly requested for the copies be forwarded to both the State and Central Governments.
In response, the State submitted that the state authority was under no obligation to forward the representation and the detenu was already informed of the procedure for submission of representation to the State and Central Governments through proper channels.
It further submitted that the second representation which was addressed to the advisory board was eventually forwarded to the State and Central Governments and was considered by them.
Case Name: Smt.Laishram v/s The State of Manipur & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. (Crl.) No.1 of 2026
Date of Decision: 12.03.2026
For the petitioner: Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, Deputy Government Advocate for respondent Nos, 1 & 2
Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, Senior
Panel counsel for Central Government
(Sr. PCCG) for respondent No. 3