The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of providing legible copies of documents to the detenue, the necessity of compelling reasons justifying the detention of a person already in custody, and the requirement for the detaining authority to consider the materials objectively before reaching a subjective satisfaction. The judgment also emphasized the duty of the Central Government to consider the report received from the State Government and the legal principles regarding the passing of a detention order against a person already in custody.

1. On being arrested, on 6.7.2006, in connection with Imphal Police Station FIR No. 601UD/1996, under sections 121/121Aof the Indian Penal Code, 13 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 25(1B) Arms Act and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, while the petitioner was still in custody, an order was passed, on 17.7.2006, by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur, under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the NS Act"). Based on a this order, dated 17.7.2006, the petitioner was placed under preventive detention and it the validity of this order, which stands impugned, in this application, made under article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner.

2. We have heard Mr. Ch. Ngongo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr, K. Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Union of India. We have also heard Md. Jalaluddin, learned Government Advocate, Manipur, for the State respondents.

3. Before we enter into the merit of the present writ petition, certain salient features of the NS Act, relevant for the purpose of this writ petition, need to be borne in mind. The scheme of the NS Act shows that whenever an order of detention is made, under section 3(3) of the NS Act, by a District Magistrate, he shall, according to the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 4, forthwith report to the State Government the fact that the order of detention has been made, the grounds on which the order of detention has been passed and such other particular as, in the opinion of the District Magistrate, have a bearing on the matter. Sub-section (4) of section 3 further provides that an order made shall not remain in force for a period more than 12 days after the making of the order thereof unless, in the meantime, the order has been approved by the State Government. The proviso to sub-section (4), however, makes it clear that when the grounds of detention are communicated to the detenue by the District Magistrate, who makes the order, after five days, but not latter than 10 days from the date of j-detention, such period of 12 days shall stand substituted by and be read as, 15 days. It is, therefore, clear that an order made by a District Magistrate, under section 3(3) of the NS Act, does not remain in force unless within a period of 12 days or, in exceptional cases, as indicated hereinbefore, within a period of 15 days from the date of making of the, , order of detention, the State Government approves the order of detention. This position of law is not in dispute before us, for, a Constitution Bench, in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 51, observed and held as under : - 34. In the National Security Act there is an express provision (section v, 3(4)] in respect of orders made by the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police under section 3(3) and the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police who has made the order is required to forthwith report the fact to the State Government to which he is subordinate. The said provision further prescribes that no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government. This would show that it is the approval of the State Government which gives further life to the order which would otherwise die its natural death on the expiry of twelve days after its making."

4. The fallout of what has been discussed above is that when the State Government approves an order of detention within the prescribed statutory period, the effect is that on and from the date of such approval, detention is authorized by the order of the State Government and it is the State Government, who becomes the detaining authority from the date of the order of approval.

5. Coupled with the above, section 8 of the NS Act makes it clear that when a person is detained on the strength of an order of preven