Right To Effective Representation Cannot Be Time-Barred Under National Security Act: Manipur High Court
Image by: Surjit Meitei
The Manipur High Court set aside a preventive detention order under the National Security Act, 1980, on the ground that laying down a three-week time limit for filing a representation to the Central Government is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
The Court further remarked that the right to make an effective representation remains till the time detention subsists and cannot be curtailed by imposing rigid timelines in the grounds of detention.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mr.M.Sundar and Justice A.Bimol Singh remarked that: “the detaining authority has fixed three weeks time frame for representation to the Central Government also. This is clearly flawed and this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that this is an infraction of sacrosanct right enshrined in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India as already alluded supra.
The Court further clarified that: “Section 10 of NSA is clear as daylight that a State Government is under obligation to place the representation of the detenu before the Advisory Board only if the detenu chooses to send a representation.”
Background:
The petitioner, a 21-year-old detainee, was arrested in April, 2025 for offences under Sections 17 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (raising funds for terrorist acts and being a member of a terrorist organisation), and Section 5 of the Arms Act, 1959 (possession of prohibited arms or ammunition).
When he was in judicial custody, the Superintendent of Police, recommended preventive detention under the National Security Act. Thereafter, District Magistrate passed the detention order.
Subsequently, the State Government approved and confirmed the detention after getting the Advisory Board's opinion.
Aggrieved the petitioner filed habeaus corpus writ petition, challenging the detention order.
One of the major contention raised by him was that the District Magistrate recorded subjective satisfaction regarding the imminent possibility of bail without any rationally probative material.
The High Court examined the record and found that although a bail application had been filed, the detaining authority failed to ascertain what transpired in the bail proceedings before recording satisfaction. The Court noted:
“…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.”
Thus, the Court remarked that the detention order was flawed because the authority assumed the detenu might soon get bail without properly examining the facts and without relying on any concrete or reliable material to support that conclusion.
The Court allowed the writ petition.
Case Name: Mutum Ranjan v/s District Magistrate
Case No.: W.P. (CRL) No.34 of 2025
Date of Decision: 11.02.2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. L. Shashibhushan, Senior Advocate
Instructed by Md. Fakhruddin, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Th. Vashum, Government Advocate for
R-1, R-2 & R-4
Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, CGC for R-3