Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Manipur, Division Bench of Chief Justice M. Sundar and Justice A. Bimol Singh, set aside a preventive detention order issued under the National Security Act, 1980, against a 21-year-old detenu held in connection with alleged offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Court held that imposing a three-week deadline for filing a representation to the Central Government directly contravenes Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, as the detenu's right to make an effective representation, along with the corresponding governmental obligation to consider it, continues uninterrupted for as long as the detention order remains in force.

A writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus was filed challenging a preventive detention order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Thoubal District, under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA). The petitioner had been arrested on 17.04.2025 in connection with an FIR registered at Thoubal Police Station alleging offences under Sections 17 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 5 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was produced before the Special Judge (NIA), Thoubal, and remanded to judicial custody.

Also Read: Employees' Compensation Act | Statutory Penalty For Employer's Default In Timely Payment Of Compensation Not Transferable To Insurer; Supreme Court

While in custody, the Superintendent of Police, Thoubal District, sent communications dated 02.05.2025 and 16.05.2025 recommending preventive detention under the NSA. Acting on these communications, the District Magistrate issued the detention order. Grounds of detention dated 23.05.2025 were served on the detenu the same day in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa.

The State Government approved the detention on 31.05.2025 under Section 3(4) of the NSA and later confirmed it on 02.07.2025 under Section 12, following a report of the Advisory Board dated 21.06.2025. The petitioner assailed the detention on two principal grounds: lack of material supporting the detaining authority’s satisfaction regarding imminent bail, and fixation of time limits for making representations.

On the issue of subjective satisfaction, the Court referred to the principles governing judicial review of preventive detention. It recorded that “areas within which validity of subjective satisfaction can be tested have been carved out” and set out the recognised categories including “When the detaining authority has not applied its mind at all” and “When the detaining authority has arrived at and recorded subjective satisfaction without the same being grounded on materials which are rationally probative value.”

Applying these principles, the Bench observed that the grounds of detention dated 23.05.2025 recorded that the detenu’s bail application was fixed for hearing on 21.05.2025. The Court stated that “while making the grounds of impugned preventive detention order on 23.05.2025, the detaining authority has not applied its mind and examined what happened to the bail application on 21.05.2025.” It concluded that this was “clearly a case of not applying its mind.”

The Court further noted that “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.” It held that the satisfaction regarding likelihood of bail was recorded “without the same being grounded on any material of rationally probative value.”

On the second issue, the Court examined paragraph 10 of the grounds of detention prescribing twelve days and three weeks for making representations. It observed that “neither the Constitution nor the long line of authorities have either provided for or justified fixing of time frames for making such representations.” Referring to precedent, it recorded that “there can be no period of limitation regarding exercise of right of the detenu to make a representation and corresponding obligation of the Central Government to consider the same… subsist so long as the preventive detention order continues.”

The Bench stated that “fixing of twelve days time frame qua representation to the detaining authority and fixing of three weeks time frame for representations to the State and Central Governments is clearly flawed and unacceptable.” It further observed that fixing such limits “has infringed the right of the detenu as it has led the detenu to believe that there are time limits/caps within representations should be made and he cannot make representation/s after the time limits elapse.”

Also Read: Manipur High Court: Limitation Period in Government Arbitration Cases Begins When Award Is Received by Competent Authority Under Section 34 of A&C Act

The Court recorded: “Ergo, sequitur is, captioned writ petition is allowed. The impugned preventive detention order dated 20.05.2025 bearing reference No. Cril. NSA Case No. 4 of 2025 made by R-1 (District Magistrate, Thoubal District, Manipur), approval of the State Government dated 31.05.2025 bearing reference No. H-1401/5/2025-HD.HD and confirmation order dated 02.07.2025 bearing reference No. H-1401/5/2025-HD.HD are all set aside.”

“Shri Mutum Ranjan Meitei @ Lamjingba resident of Yairipok Chandrakhong Mamang Leikai, Thoubal District, aged about 21 years now lodged in Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa, Imphal East, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case/s.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. L. Shashibhushan, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Fakhruddin, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Th. Vashum, Government Advocate; Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, CGC.

Case Title: Mutum Ranjan Meitei @ Lamjingba v. District Magistrate, Thoubal District & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) No. 34 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice M. Sundar, Justice A. Bimol Singh