The Gauhati High Court (High Court) has quashed the preventive detention of activist Pranab Doley under the National Security Act, holding that the detention order was vitiated by the authorities failure to consider material facts, supply relevant documents and examine his second representation.

Doley was detained by the Assam Government on July 30, 2026. The grounds of detention referred to 13 criminal cases registered against him between 2017 and 2026. These included allegations relating to an incident on June 28, 2026 at the proposed Assam Tea Tribe Museum and ATDC-Hyatt Hotel project site in Golaghat where protesters allegedly trespassed, assaulted police personnel and attempted to damage property.

A Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund observed:

"In light of the discussions on the four reasons referred hereinbefore, being (i) stale criminal cases; (ii) non-furnishing of relevant documents to the petitioner; (iii) non- consideration of petitioner's second representation dated 10.08.2026; and (iv) foreign travel and receipt of foreign remittances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the said four reasons are sufficient to hold that the impugned order of preventive detention of the petitioner is vitiated and not sustainable on facts and in law.

The reference to stale criminal cases and old foreign travel and past receipt of foreign remittances have the effect of snapping the live and proximate link between the prejudicial activities of the petitioner and the purpose of detention and failure on the part of the detaining authority in explaining such delay in any manner, or providing the petitioner with relevant documents. Moreover, under the facts of this case, the non-disposal of the second representation dated 10.08.2026, which was submitted after petitioner got access to his family, friend and learned counsel, is also found to vitiate the continued detention of the petitioner.The detaining authority has not applied its mind as to whether or not the ordinary laws of the Country was insufficient to deal with the activities of the petitioner".

At outset the high court observed that there was lack of complete and full disclosure regarding the status of 13 criminal cases against Doley which vitiated the detention order on account of malice in law, otherwise there was no other reason to withheld such vital information from the Detaining Authority.

"The Detaining Authority had also turned its blind eye towards the same by not calling for information about the status of those cases", the court said.

The High Court noted that Doley had been discharged in one of the cases and acquitted in nine others. However, these developments were not brought to the notice of the detaining authority. The Court held that these were material facts which could have affected the authority's subjective satisfaction and that their non-disclosure vitiated the detention order.

"As the petitioner is found to have been detained on the strength of stale cases, including those wherein he has been discharged and acquitted, the only inference that can be drawn under the facts of this case is that the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority, by issuing detention order, has adopted a short cut to detain the petitioner instead of following due process of law by assailing the respective orders by virtue of which the petitioner was acquitted and/or discharged in criminal cases referred above," the court said.

The High Court also found that Doley had not been supplied with charge sheets in 11 cases or the investigation materials relied upon by the authorities. The non supply of these documents impaired his right to make an effective representation.

"the allegations against the petitioner is vague and bereft of material particulars and thus, insufficient to enable the petitioner to understand the specific charges against him. Therefore, it is not only obvious but also admitted by the respondent no.2 that relevant facts are not disclosed in the grounds of detention and relevant documents are not furnished to the detenu. Therefore, it cannot be expected that the detenu will be able to make an effective representation before the prescribed authorities in the absence of relevant materials being furnished to the petitioner," the court said.

The court observed that the in the order dated 14.08.2026, passed by the Additional Chief Secretary which rejected the petitioner's 04.08.2026 representation, referred to police records and situation reports (SITREPs) which stated that "under the garb of public agitation, the detenu repeatedly led armed mobs, blocked road, disrupted public peace and actively obstructed public infrastructure projects".

However, the court noted, that grounds of detention did not show that the police records and situation reports (SITREPs) were furnished to the petitioner.

The court thus said that a valuable right of the petitioner has been "curtailed by the detaining authority by non-disclosure of materials" based on which the authorities had arrived at a satisfaction that the preventive detention of the petitioner was necessary.

Another ground for quashing the detention was the failure to consider Doley's second representation dated August 10, 2026. The Court noted that his first representation had been submitted before he could meet his family or obtain legal assistance. After the High Court facilitated such meetings he submitted a detailed second representation. The Court held that this representation ought to have been forwarded to the concerned authorities and considered expeditiously.

The High Court further rejected the reliance on Doley's 14 foreign travel and foreign remittances as grounds for preventive detention. It observed that the authorities had not established any connection between these activities and conduct prejudicial to national security. The High Court also noted that the transactions relied upon dated back several years thereby weakening the required live and proximate link with the detention.

The high court quashed the detention order.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Borthakur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.K. Agarwala.

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S. Chakraborty, Central Government Counsel; Mr. D. Mozumdar, Additional Advocate General; and Mr. P. Sarmah, Additional Senior Government Advocate.