Sanchayita Lahkar

The Gauhati High Court, Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, has ordered the release of Victor Das, whose preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980, was found to be in violation of constitutional safeguards. Das had been taken into custody following alleged incidents of inciting public unrest and mob violence in the aftermath of a prominent singer's death, with the detaining authority contending that his continued presence at large posed a threat to public order and state security. Quashing the detention order along with its governmental approval, the Court directed Das's immediate release, holding that the State had failed to inform him of his right to represent before the detaining authority and had not disposed of his representations within a constitutionally permissible timeframe.

Victor Das, an activist was taken into preventive detention by the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, on the basis of two FIRs arising from alleged incidents of mob violence and incitement to public unrest following the death of a well-known Assamese singer. The detaining authority alleged that Das had used social media platforms to disseminate inflammatory content, mobilize crowds, obstruct police officials, and damage government property. The detention order was subsequently approved by the Governor of Assam, and Das was lodged in Central Jail, Guwahati.

Also Read: "Cruelty Of The Highest Order": Supreme Court Pulls Up Husband For Ousting Wife And Denying Her Access To Six-Month-Old Twins; Directs Parties To Appear With Children

Das was informed of his right to represent before the State Government and the Advisory Board, but was not informed of his right to represent before the detaining authority itself. He submitted representations to the State Government, Central Government, and the Advisory Board, which were disposed of over a period of sixteen and twenty-three days respectively.

Before the Court, Das contended that the detaining authority omitted to inform him of his right to represent before it, that there was unexplained delay in disposal of his representations, that relevant documents were not furnished to him, that the possibility of bail was not considered, and that he was not informed of the detention period. The State defended the order citing subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the severability of detention grounds under Section 5A of the Act.

The court addressed the first and most critical ground raised by the petitioner — the failure of the Detaining Authority to inform the petitioner of his right to make a representation before it. After examining the Detention Order, the forwarding letter dated 08.10.2025, and the Grounds of Detention, the court recorded that "neither in the forwarding letter nor in the Grounds of Detention, there was any mention and/or intimation to the Petitioner of his right to submit representations before the Detaining Authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati."

The court further noted that even from the letter dated 11.10.2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police informing the petitioner of his right to represent before the Central Government, "no mention of the Detenue's right of representation before the Detaining Authority" was made.

Placing reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Kamalesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India, the court stated that "this right to make a representation necessarily implies that the person detained must be informed of his right to make a representation to the authority that has made the order of detention at the time when he is served with the grounds of detention so as to enable him to make such a representation and the failure to do so results in denial of the right of the person detained to make a representation."

Drawing upon the Full Bench decision of the Gauhati High Court in Konsam Brojen Singh v. State of Manipur, the court recorded the following conclusions: "The detaining authority is under the constitutional obligation to inform the detenue of his right to make such a representation to the detaining authority" and "the failure to inform the detenue of such right to make representation to the Detaining Authority vitiates the detention order made even under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980."

The court stated that "the right of the detenue to make a representation to the Detaining Authority in addition to the State Government and the Central Government, is one of the most valuable right which has been mandated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and non-intimation of such valuable right takes away his right to make a representation before the Detaining Authority, who has the power and jurisdiction to consider his representation."

On the question of delay in disposal of representations, the court observed that "it took nine (9) days for the Commissioner of Police to submit para-wise comments to the representation of the Petitioner and thereafter, another seven (7) days taken by the Addl. Secretary to the State Government, Home & Political Department to consider and reject the aforesaid representation" and that "the Central Government took another eight (8) days to consider and reject the representation of the Petitioner."

The court stated that "the authority, while considering the representation is not expected to take the undue luxury of time in considering the representation" and that "every day of unexplained delay is prohibited in the case of preventive detention."

Referring to K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, the court stated that "any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal."

Applying these principles, the court observed that "the State Government took 17 days to dispose of the representations submitted by the Petitioner and no convincing explanation could be given by the State Government" and that "such unexplained delay can obviously be termed as fatal and thereby, providing an indefeasible right of liberty to the Petitioner."

The court concluded that "the State Government has miserably failed to provide constitutional guarantee to the Petitioner, under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, while executing the process of detention of the Petitioner in the instant case, clearly on the aforesaid two grounds, i.e., (1) Non-information/intimation of the Petitioner's right to make a representation before the Detaining Authority and (2) Unreasonable and unexplained delay in considering and disposal of the representations submitted by the Petitioner before the State and Central Government respectively."

Also Read: Continuation Of Trial Futile When Couple Is Married And Living Together With Child : Gauhati High Court Quashes Child Marriage And POCSO Proceedings U/S 528 BNSS

The Court held "The impugned Detention Order dated 07.10.2025, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, the Grounds of Detention served upon the Petitioner on 08.10.2025 as well as the order bearing Memo No. PLA-710928/122 dated 14.10.2025, whereby the Detention Order of the Petitioner was approved by the Government of Assam/Hon'ble Governor of Assam, are hereby set aside and quashed."

"Accordingly, having held that the detention of the Petitioner is bad under the law and on quashing of the impugned orders as well as the Grounds of Detention, the Petitioner is directed to be set at liberty immediately, if not otherwise wanted in any other case. In terms of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of as allowed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Borthakur, Mr. D. Medhi, Mr. Sauradeep Dey\

For the Respondents: Mr. B. Goswami, Additional Advocate General, State of Assam, assisted by Mr. N. Kalita, Government Advocate; Mr. K.K. Parasar, Central Government Counsel, representing the Union of India

Case Title: Victor Das v. The Union of India and 4 Others

Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:2580- DB

Case Number: W.P.(Crl.)/76/2025

Bench: Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita