Gauhati High Court Quashes NSA Detention Of Activist Victor Das For Violating Article 22(5) Safeguards

The Gauhati High Court has set aside the preventive detention of Victor Das under the National Security Act, 1980, holding that the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) were violated.

A Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita quashed the detention order dated October 7, 2025, the grounds of detention, and the State Government's approval, directing that Das be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Das had been detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act by an order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, following incidents that occurred after the death of Assamese singer Zubeen Garg. Two criminal cases were registered against him at Azara Police Station and Fatasil Ambari Police Station alleging that he mobilised crowds, instigated unrest, damaged public property and obstructed police personnel. Though he secured bail in one of the cases, he was subsequently detained under the preventive detention law. The detention order was approved by the Governor of Assam on October 14, 2025.

Challenging the detention under Article 226 of the Constitution, Das contended that the order was illegal and suffered from serious procedural lapses.

Failure To Inform Right To Represent Before Detaining Authority

The principal ground on which the detention was quashed was the failure of the authorities to inform the detenue of his right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority itself.

The Court noted that although Das was informed of his right to make representations to the State Government, the Central Government and the Advisory Board, there was no mention in the detention order, grounds of detention or subsequent communications that he could also make a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, who had passed the order.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel v Union of India and the Full Bench decision of the Gauhati High Court in Konsam Brojen Singh v State of Manipur, the Bench reiterated that a detenue has a constitutional right under Article 22(5) to make a representation not only to the appropriate Government but also to the authority that passed the detention order. The Court observed that this right flows directly from the Constitution and that failure to inform the detenue of this right vitiates the detention.

The Bench held that non communication of this valuable right amounted to denial of a constitutional safeguard and rendered the detention unsustainable.

Unexplained Delay In Disposal Of Representations

The Court also found merit in the contention that there was unreasonable and unexplained delay in disposal of Das's representations.

Das submitted his representations on October 22, 2025. The Commissioner of Police furnished para wise comments on October 31, 2025. The State Government rejected the representation on November 7, 2025, and the Central Government rejected it on November 14, 2025. The State sought to justify part of the delay by referring to intervening holidays.

The Bench held that there was no convincing explanation for the time taken. Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Icchu Devi Choraria v Union of India and Vijay Kumar v State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Court emphasised that representations in preventive detention cases must be considered with utmost expedition and that any unexplained delay would render the continued detention illegal. It observed that every day of unexplained delay undermines the constitutional mandate under Article 22(5).

In view of its findings on the above two grounds, the Court declined to examine the remaining challenges raised by the petitioner, including allegations of non furnishing of relevant materials, non consideration of the possibility of bail, and failure to specify the period of detention.

Holding that the State had failed to comply with the constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention, the Court quashed the detention order dated October 7, 2025, the grounds of detention served on October 8, 2025, and the approval order dated October 14, 2025. It directed that Victor Das be set at liberty immediately if not otherwise required in any other case.

The petitioner was represented by Mr S Borthakur, Mr D Medhi and Mr Sauradeep Dey, while the respondents were represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India, Mr K K Parasar, CGC, and the Government Advocate, Assam.

Case : Victor Das v. Union of India

Click here to read the order