Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Aminul Islam S/o Late Mufti Khairul Islam – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Mazumdar, J.
By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the; (1) impugned Detention Order No. NMM 17/2025/ NSA /83, dated 14.05.2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Nagaon; (2) impugned Corrigendum No. NMM 17/2025/ /131, dated 12.06.2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Nagaon; as well as (3) the Order No. PLA- 42/2025/156, dated 03.07.2025, passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home & Political Department, thereby confirming the detention order on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board.
2. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the State of Assam and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India.
3. Notices were issued on 21.07.2025. Affidavit on behalf of the District Magistrate was filed on 14.08.2025, to which a rejoinder was filed on 26.08.2025. The response on behalf of the Union of India came to be filed on 28.08.2025. The State of Assam filed another affidavit on 29.08.2025.
4. Argum
Failure to inform a detenue of his right to representation and unexplained delays in processing representations under Article 22(5) of the Constitution vitiate detention orders.
Failure to inform a detenue of their right to represent before the detaining authority and unexplained delays in processing such representations violate Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering p....
Quash of detention order - Delay in forwarding the petitioner’s representation on the part of the District Magistrate, and also delay in disposal of the petitioner’s representation
Unexplained delays in addressing a detainee's representation for release render ongoing detention unconstitutional, affirming the necessity for prompt action by authorities.
Detention order quashed - State failed to discharge its obligation in deciding representation expeditiously and moreover Central Government has not decided representation till date which is fatal and....
The detaining authority must be aware of all material circumstances and provide complete information, and there is a constitutional obligation to afford timely representation.
Point of Law : Preventive detention - Grounds of detention - It is obligatory on part of Government to show by filing a counter affidavit that it had acted promptly in dealing with representation - P....
Though no time limit is prescribed for disposal of representation, constitutional imperative is that it must be disposed of as soon as possible.
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
