Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT KOHIMA BENCH
Soumitra Saikia, Kaushik Goswami, JJ.
Mr. Khekato Zhimomi, S/O Late Kotupu Zhimomi – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Nagaland Represented By The Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(Crl.)/15/2024
Decided On : 11-11-2024
(A) National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(3) - Constitution of India - Article 22(5) - Detention order challenged on grounds of violation of constitutional safeguards and lack of cogent material - Detention order quashed as it failed to provide necessary grounds and materials for detention, infringing the right to make an effective representation. (Paras 9, 10, 23, 44, 46)
(B) Detention - Grounds for detention must be specific and supported by cogent material - Mere ipse dixit statements regarding likelihood of bail are insufficient to justify detention. (Paras 30, 34, 39)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a detention order under the National Security Act, claiming it violated constitutional rights and lacked sufficient grounds. The petitioner was arrested in connection with extortion activities and detained while in judicial custody. (Paras 2, 8, 18)
Findings of Court:
The detention order was found to be illegal due to lack of specific grounds and failure to provide necessary materials to the petitioner. (Paras 45, 46)
Issues: Whether the detention was illegal due to lack of grounds and materials provided to the petitioner. (Paras 22, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of providing specific grounds and materials for detention, affirming that constitutional safeguards must be upheld. (Paras 23, 44)
Result: Detention order quashed and petitioner ordered to be released. (Paras 46, 48)
JUDGMENT :
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Heard Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and Mr. Yangerwati, learned CGC for respondent No. 5.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging inter-alia the detention order being No. CP/DMR/CB-19/2024-25/688 dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Police & District Magistrate, Dimapur, Nagaland under Sub-Section(3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, 1980) by which the petitioner has been detained under the said Act.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was arrested on 23.04.2024 and subsequent thereto, a Suo Moto FIR was registered by the Police at Dimapur East Police Station being Dimapur East PS Case No.0070/2024 under Section 384/34 IPC read with Regulation 7 of the Nagaland Security Regulation, 1962 (herein after referred to as the NSR,1962).
4. It is alleged in the FIR that information was received that UG cadre were collecting tax from business owners around Bata Charali area by visiting shops and making phone calls. In connection to which, one Khukivi Sumi was arrested and on the information provided by the said person, the petitioner/detenue was also arrested. It is further alleged in the FIR that the persons who were apprehended have said that they have, with the assistance of one Ruby Dey, extorted money from various locations within Dimapur town.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that while he was under judicial custody, he was served on 14.05.2024 with the impugned Detention Order dated 13.05.2024 passed by the respondent No. 3 under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act, 1980 by which he has been detained.
6. The respondent No. 3 by letter dated 13.05.2024 wrote to the respondent No. 2 for approval by the State Government of the detention order passed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland by Order dated 22.05.2024 approved the said detention order. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.05.2024 through the Jail authorities to the Special Secretary, Government of Nagaland, Home Department against his detention.
7. The Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland by Order dated 30.05.2024 rejected the said representation. Subsequently, by Confirmation Order dated 09.08.2024, the detention of the petitioner has been extended till 12.11.2024.
8. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to quash and set aside the said Detention Order dated 13.05.2024, the said Approval Order dated 22.05.2024 and the Confirmation Order dated 09.08.2024.
9. Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detention order is totally in violation of Section 8 of the said Act, 1980 and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
10. He further submits that reading of the detention order indicates that the ground of detention is that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is likely to move for bail. He further submits that no details whatsoever as regards the petitioner being a habitual offender is given in the detention order for which the detention order is in gross violation of the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the detenue have the right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, to be furnished with all documents and materials relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the detention order.
11. He further submits that the apprehension of the detaining authority that the petitioner is likely to move for bail has no basis whatsoever. He further submits that detailed reasons and the materials based on which the detaining authority come to the conclusion that the detenue if moves for bail, is likely to be released on bail must be given in the grounds
Detention orders must provide specific grounds and cogent materials; failure to do so violates constitutional rights and renders the order illegal.
The court ruled that detention orders must provide specific grounds and materials justifying detention, especially for individuals already in custody, to uphold constitutional rights.
Preventive detention requires cogent evidence and compliance with due process, including proper communication of grounds in a comprehensible language for the detenu.
The failure to supply legible documents to a detenue violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, hindering effective representation and rendering the detention order illegal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
