IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Michael Zothankhuma, Devashis Baruah, JJ.
Smti Nancy, Wife of Abi Neikha – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Nagaland, Represented By The Chief Secretary And Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(Crl.)/12/2023
Decided On : 07-12-2023
Personal Liberty - Detention Order under National Security Act, 1980 - Section 25 (1A) of the Arms Act of 1959, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code - Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Section 10 of the Act of 1980
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, wife of a detained individual, challenged the Detention Order, Approval Order, and Confirmation Order issued against her husband. The court found that the Detention Order, Approval Order, and Confirmation Order were based on mere ipse dixit statements and violated the statutory obligation of placing the matter before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention.
Finding of the Court:
The Detention Order, Approval Order, and Confirmation Order were set aside and quashed due to lack of cogent materials and violation of Section 10 of the Act of 1980.
Issues: 1. Whether the Detention Order, Approval Order, and Confirmation Order can be interfered with on the ground of not reflecting the existence of cogent materials that the husband of the petitioner was likely to be released on bail? 2. Whether the Detention Order, Approval Order, and Confirmation Order are required to be interfered with on the ground of violation of Section 10 of the Act of 1980?
Ratio Decidendi: The Detention Order, Approval Order, and Confirmation Order were based on mere ipse dixit statements and violated the statutory obligation of placing the matter before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention.
Final Decision: The Detention Order, Approval Order, and Confirmation Order were set aside and quashed.
JUDGMENT :
D. Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. A. Sophie, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, and Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, learned CGC for the respondent No. 2.
2. Personal liberty of an individual is the most precious and prized right guaranteed under the Constitution in Part-III thereof. The State has been granted the power to curb such rights under criminal laws as also under the laws of preventive detention, which, therefore, are required to be exercised with due caution as well as upon a proper appreciation of facts as to whether such acts are in any way prejudicial to the interest and the security of the State and its citizens or seeks to disturb public law and order, warranting the issue of such an order. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take into consideration the facts involved.
3. The petitioner in the instant writ proceedings is the wife of one Mr. Abi Neikha, who by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has challenged the Detention Order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the District Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner, Kohima; the Government Approval Order dated 07.08.2023 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland and the Confirmation Order dated 24.10.2023 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland.
4. From a perusal of the writ petition it reveals that a complaint was lodged on 05.07.2023 at Kezocha Police Station, Kohima stating interalia that information was received from reliable sources regarding transportation of ammunition from Phek District and as such, MVCP was conducted, whereby prohibited ammunition were seized from the possession of one UBC, Mr. Talimbo Zeliang, of DEF Phek. On the basis thereof, a case was registered, being Kezocha PS Case No. 005/23, under Section 25 (1A) of the Arms Act of 1959 (for short, ‘the Act of 1959’), read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was further mentioned in the writ petition that during the course of investigation, the UBC, Talimbo Zeliang revealed the name of the petitioner’s husband, i.e. Abi Neikha and stated that the ammunition seized from his possession were to be delivered to the petitioner’s husband and thereafter, basing on the statement of the said UBC, Talimbo Zeliang, the petitioner’s husband was arrested and booked under section 25 (1A) of the Act of 1959, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and forwarded to judicial custody.
5. The record reveals that on 26.07.2023, the District Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner, Kohima passed a Detention Order bearing No. DCK/CON/NSA/2023/01 (for short, ‘the Detention Order’). This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the circumstances which led to the passing of the Detention Order. The records which have been produced before this Court reveals that on 24.07.2023, the Superintendent of Police, Kohima had submitted a proposal before the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Kohima for detention under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980, (for short, the Act of 1980), in respect of the husband of the petitioner. From a perusal of the said document, it reveals that 2 persons were arrested including the husband of the petitioner and both the persons were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 06.07.2023 and were remanded under Police custody for a period of 5 days. On completion of the Police remand period, on 10.07.2023, extension for another 5 days was prayed to the Court. The grounds of detention for which the proposal was made as is reflected in the communication dated 24.07.2023, are reproduced hereinunder:
The judgment established the necessity of compelling reasons and reliable materials for issuing detention orders, especially when the detainee is already in custody.
The Detaining Authority must be aware of the detenu's custody status and there must be compelling reasons justifying detention despite the detenu being in custody.
Preventive detention for a person in custody is valid only if the detaining authority explicitly records awareness of the custody status, assesses the real possibility of release on bail, and conclud....
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of likelihood of bail and potential prejudicial activities; mere assertions are insufficient for lawful detention.
Preventive detention orders must be based on specific, documented grounds that are communicated to the detainee, ensuring compliance with constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22.
Preventive detention requires clear grounds and sufficient material to justify the detention, ensuring the detainee's right to make an effective representation is upheld.
The court ruled that detention orders must provide specific grounds and materials justifying detention, especially for individuals already in custody, to uphold constitutional rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.