Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, ANJAN MONI KALITA
Victor Das, S/o Late Kumud Chandra Das – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Represented By The Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for quashing detention order under nsa. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. background facts leading to detention under nsa. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments against the legality of detention. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. observations on violations of due process. (Para 46 , 49) |
| 5. recognition of right to representation as fundamental. (Para 56 , 67) |
| 6. conclusion to quash detention order. (Para 68 , 69) |
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Kalita, J.
Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as well as Mr. B. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State of Assam, assisted by Mr. N. Kalita, learned Government Advocate. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned CGC, representing the Respondent no. 1.
2. The instant petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the Detention Order bearing Memo No. CP/CB/NSA/2025/49, dated 07.10.2025, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, in exercise of it’s power under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.
3. In the prayers, the Petitioner has, amongst others, prayed for the following reli
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....
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.
(1) Law of preventive detention must not only comply with Article 22 of Constitution, but also fulfill mandate of Articles 21 and 14.(2) Preventive detention – If consideration of representation made....
Unexplained delays in addressing a detainee's representation for release render ongoing detention unconstitutional, affirming the necessity for prompt action by authorities.
Point of law : words 'shall afford him the earliest opoortunity of making a representation against the order' in Article 22(5) of the Constitution suggest that the obligation of the Government is to ....
The preventive detention order was upheld, affirming that procedural delays in representation handling did not violate constitutional mandates under Article 22(5).
Point of Law : Right of Parliament and executive to place restrictions upon a man's freedom - There should not be “supine indifference/slackness or callous attitude” in considering representation - T....
Preventive detention orders must strictly comply with procedural safeguards, including timely communication of grounds and consideration of representations; non-compliance renders detention invalid.
The detaining authority must be aware of all material circumstances and provide complete information, and there is a constitutional obligation to afford timely representation.
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
