N. Chaudhury, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Wotsa, learned Government Advocate. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention of her husband Santosh Chakraborty ordered on 25.6.2013 by the District Magistrate, Dimapur which was approved by the appropriate Government on 5.7.2013.

2. On 18.6.2013, the petitioner's husband was arrested in connection with Dimapur East PS Case No. 130/13 under Section 384 IPC read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act alleging that on being tipped off, the security personnel recovered a pistol and incriminating documents from him and on investigation it was found that he had been involved in extorting money from businessmen on behalf outlawed organization. Subsequently, on 21.6.2013 a proposal was made to the District Magistrate by the Superintendent of Police Dimapur for detaining the petitioner's husband under National Security Act. Accordingly, on 25.6.2013 an order was passed by the District Magistrate applying sub section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act 1980. In the proposal letter dated 21.6.2013 sent by the Supdt. of Police Dimapur, it was opined as follows:

Accordingly, a joint interrogation was conducted in the present of all investigation agencies on 20.6.13. During the interrogation it was ascertained that accused is not a member of any underground group but he does the work of the FGN since last two years by collecting of illegal tax from shops and vehicle and the said pistol and tax collection receipt coupon was given to him by one Atovi Sumi of FGN.

3. The detenue was informed of his right of making representation to the detaining authority, Central Government and the State Government through the concerned Jail authority. It was also mentioned that he had the right to claim personal hearing before advisory board constituted by the appropriate Government under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appropriate Government approved the detention on 5.7.2013 for 12 months w.e.f. 25.6.2013. The petitioner appears to have made a representation to the Government on 9.7.2013 and the same was rejected on 17.7.2013.

4. Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:-

(i) The communication to the detenue in regard to ground of detention does not contain necessary information to the effect that the detenue was entitled to be represented by next friend and as such the right conferred on the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been violated There was no meaningful compliance of the provisions of the Act as well as the Constitution inasmuch as because of the failure on the part of detaining authority to make the detenue aware about his right of being represented the detenue has been prejudiced. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nameirakpam Inaotomba Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2007 (4) GLT 200. In paragraph 14 of the said judgment the Division Bench of this Court has held that informing the detenue about his right of being represented by next friend is a necessary exercise and failure to do so vitiates the fundamental right of the detenue conferred under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

(ii) The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that there is likelihood of the detenue being released on bail in connection with the police case is also based on no material and the opinion does not contain necessary ingredients to arrive at such subjective opinion. True, opinion of the detaining authority is a subjective one but such opinion should be based on some material. Relying on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Moirangthem Ibomcha Singh Vs. State of Manipur & Ors. reported in 2011 (3) GLT 782 : (2012) 6 GLR 379, the learned counsel would argue that details of the case where bail was gra