Manipur HC Quashes Preventive Detention Order, Says Fixing Time Limit For Making Representation Violates Article 22(5) Of Constitution
The Manipur High Court has set aside a preventive detention order passed under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), holding that prescribing a time limit for a detenu to submit representations against the detention order infringes the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mr.M.Sundar and Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh remarked that: “time frame cannot be fixed even for a representation to be made to State Government as sanctus right of the detenue in this regard subsists as long as the preventive detention order operates....fixing of timeframes for sending representations is a clear infraction of sacrosanct Constitutional right enshrined in Article 22(5)."
Background:
The petitioner contended that paragraph 10 of the grounds of detention informed the detenu that representations to the State Government and the Central Government "should be submitted within three weeks from the date of detention." It was argued that such a stipulation unlawfully curtailed the detenu's constitutional right to make a representation against the detention order.
Accepting the contention, the Court observed that Article 22(5) guarantees a detenu the right to make a representation against a preventive detention order and that this right subsists for as long as the detention order remains in force. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Prem Lata Sharma v. District Magistrate, Mathura and its own earlier decisions in Mutum Ranjan Meitei and Laishram Nilajit Shija, the Bench reiterated that there can be no limitation period for exercising such a right.
The Court rejected the State's argument that the three-week period was mentioned only because Section 10 of the NSA requires the Government to place the grounds of detention and any representation before the Advisory Board within three weeks. It held that Section 10 imposes an obligation on the Government, not on the detenu. The provision merely requires the Government to place a representation before the Advisory Board if one has been made within that period; it does not restrict the detenu's right to submit a representation thereafter.
The Bench observed that a representation submitted even after three weeks must still be considered by the Government, particularly in light of its power to revoke detention orders under Section 14 of the NSA. Consequently, fixing a deadline for the detenu to make representations amounted to a clear infraction of the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(5).
The Court also distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Paul Manickam, relied upon by the State, noting that the case concerned a detenu who had misled the Court regarding representations made to authorities and did not involve the legality of prescribing a time limit for making representations under a preventive detention law.
Notably, the Court recorded that the detention order was based on a single FIR registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Arms Act and UAPA. It further noted that although more than 90 days had elapsed since the detenu's arrest, the State had neither filed a charge sheet nor sought extension of time under Section 43D(2) of the UAPA. While clarifying that this was not the ground on which the detention order was being quashed, the Court observed that the detenu appeared entitled to seek default bail in the criminal case.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the detention order dated March 8, 2026, along with the approval and confirmation orders issued by the State Government, and directed the immediate release of the detenu, if not required in any other case.
Case Name: Yambem Manichandra Singh V/s The State of Manipur
Case No.: WP ( Crl) No.10 OF 2026