The detention order was quashed due to procedural violations and lack of connection between the detenu's past conduct and the necessity for detention under the National Security Act.

JUDGMENT :

Robin Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5; and Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 3.

2. In this habeas corpus petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner namely, Shri Liahey Ngwazah has put to challenge the order, Memo No. C/JUD/-110/NSA, dated 30.08.2023, issued by the District Magistrate, Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh; and the order, Memo No. HMB[B]-12049/1/2023, dated 16.10.2023, passed by the Principal Secretary [Home], Government of Arunachal Pradesh; and the orders vide Memo No. JUD-110/NSA, dated 14.09.2023, and subsequent order, Memo No. JUD-110/NSA, dated 20.11.2023, passed by the District Magistrate, Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh rejecting the representations submitted on behalf of the detenu and the decision of the Advisory Board, National Security Act (Arunachal Pradesh State Unit) dated 30.09.2023.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 30.08.2023, the District Magistrate, Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh has ordered detention of the petitioner for a period of 3 months, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (NSA) and vide impugned order dated 16.10.2023, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has confirmed the said detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh. It is also to be noted here that vide orders dated 14.09.2023 and 20.11.2023, the District Magistrate has dismissed the representations filed by the petitioner for revoking of the detention order. And vide decision dated 30.09.2023, the Advisory Board, National Security Act (Arunachal Pradesh State Unit) has approved the impugned detention order dated 30.08.2023.

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are adumbrated herein below:-

“On the intervening night of 05.06.2023, about 100 – 150 men and women vandalized the Government properties, located at 40th miles, under Namdapha National Park and to that effect, one Shri Son Yowa Hade, Forest Range Officer, Gandhigram Wild Life Range lodged one FIR, with the Officer In-Charge of Miao Police Station on 05.06.2023. It was alleged in the said FIR that aforementioned 100 – 150 men and women were instigated by the present petitioner, by convening a meeting at Gandhigram. Upon the said FIR the Officer In-Charge of Miao Police Station had registered a case, being Miao PS Case No. 09/2023, under Sections 120[B]/447/427/392/186/506 of the IPC, read with Section 3 of the PDPP Act. Thereafter, police arrested the present petitioner and forwarded him to the court. Thereafter, a bail application was preferred before the learned CJM, Changlang and upon hearing both the parties, vide order dated 30.08.2023, the learned CJM, Changlang had granted bail to the petitioner and before being released from the jail, the District Magistrate, Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh had passed the detention order, dated 30.08.2023, Memo No. C/JUD/-110/NSA, under Section 3[2] of the National Security Act, 1980. Thereafter, the family members of the petitioner had filed one representation for revocation of the detention order and then, vide order dated 14.09.2023, Memo No. C/JUD-110/NSA, the District Magistrate, Changlang had dismissed the representation, filed on behalf of the detenu to set him at liberty. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.10.2023, Memo No. HMB [B]-12049/1/2023, the Advisory Board had confirmed the detention order, dated 30.08.2023, Memo No. C/JUD/-110/NSA, issued by the District Magistrate, Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, again petitions were filed for revocation of the detention order of the petitioner and then, vide order dated 20.11.2023, Memo No. C/JUD-110/NSA, the District Magistrate, Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh has re