Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, KOHIMA BENCH
Soumitra Saikia, Kaushik Goswami, JJ.
Smti. Ruchunyhunle Tep, Wife Of Shri Khukivi Aye – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Nagaland Through The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Nagaland And Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(Crl.)/12/2024, I.A.(Crl.)/26/2024
Decided On : 11-11-2024
(A) National Security Act, 1980 - Sections 3(1) & (2) - Constitution of India - Article 22(5) - Detention Order challenged on grounds of violation of constitutional safeguards - Detenue was arrested and detained under the Act without being provided with grounds for detention - The court held that the detention order was illegal as it failed to provide cogent materials justifying the detention, especially since the detenue was already in custody and no bail application was pending - The court emphasized the necessity of communicating grounds of detention to ensure the right to make an effective representation. (Paras 22, 23, 44, 46)
(B) Detention Order - Validity - The court ruled that a detention order cannot be sustained if it is based on mere apprehension without reliable materials, particularly when the detenue is already in custody and has not moved for bail. (Paras 30, 36, 39)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the detention of her husband under the National Security Act, arguing that the detention order violated constitutional rights and lacked sufficient grounds.
Findings of Court:
The court found the detention order illegal due to lack of cogent materials and failure to communicate grounds for detention.
Issues: The main issue was whether the detention was justified given the absence of a pending bail application and the lack of specific grounds for detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the detention order was invalid as it did not meet the constitutional requirements for preventive detention, particularly for a person already in custody.
Result: The detention order was quashed, and the detenue was ordered to be released.
JUDGMENT :
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Heard Mr. Supongwati Walling, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, learned CGSC for respondent No. 4.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner i.e. the wife of Shri. Khukivi Aye, is challenging inter-alia the Detention Order being No. CP/DMR/CB-19/2024-25/685 dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Police & District Magistrate, Dimapur, Nagaland under Section 3 (1) & (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, 1980) by which the petitioner’s husband has been detained under the said Act.
3. The case of the petitioner’s husband/detenue 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 (hereinafter 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, the detenue i.e Khukivi Aye was arrested and on the information provided by the said person, one Kakheto Zhimomi 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 her husband 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 detenue. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland by Order dated 22.05.2024 approved the said detention order. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband 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 detenue 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. Supongwati Walling, 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 detenue is a habitual offender and is likely to move for bail. He further submits that no details whatsoever as regards the detenue 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 detenue 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
The court ruled that detention orders must provide specific grounds and materials justifying detention, especially for individuals already in custody, to uphold constitutional rights.
Detention orders must provide specific grounds and cogent materials; failure to do so violates constitutional rights and renders the order illegal.
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.
Preventive detention requires cogent evidence and compliance with due process, including proper communication of grounds in a comprehensible language for the detenu.
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
