Preventive detention under the National Security Act requires clear justification of public order disturbances, adherence to procedural safeguards, and can be validated by prior criminal history.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Advocate assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Tripathi, Advocate & Sri Raghav Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri S.N. Tilahari, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 2 to 4.

2. The Apex Court, vide order dated 18.12.2025, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 20664 of 2025; Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India and Ors. has requested the High Court to decide the issue of maintainability of Habeas Corpus Writ Petition within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order which order has been received on 03.01.2026.

3. Considering the aforesaid, the matter has been heard at length.

4. Instant Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner from the illegal detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (in short "Act, 1980"). Further prayer is for quashing the detention order dated 02.07.2024 passed under the Act, 1980 by the District Magistrate, Mathura and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom as well as for a direction to pay appropriate compensation for the illegal detention.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on account of typographical error in the prayer clause, the date has been indicated as 02.07.2024 rather the same should be read as 02.07.2025 as the detention order is of 02.07.2025.

6. The aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had been required to indicate as to how the petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus would lie against the detention order passed under the Act, 1980.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India Vs. Alka Subhas Gadia, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 496 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that it is always open for the detenue or anyone on his behalf to challenge the detention order by way of Habeas Corpus petition on any of the grounds available to him.

9. Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri S.N.Tilahari, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 2 to 4 do not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court.

10. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid, we find that the petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus raising a challenge to the detention order passed under the Act, 1980 is maintainable. We hold accordingly.

11. Broadly, the detention order has been challenged by the petitioner/detenue on the following grounds:

i) The detention order has been wrongly passed by terming the 'law and order' situation as public order situation.

ii) There was an inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding the representation of the detenue by the appropriate government.

iii) The detention order was passed despite the petitioner being already in custody and on grounds of likelihood of bail which itself vitiates the detention order.

iv) Detenue's/petitioner's criminal history was used as the basis of the illegal detention order.

12. Before proceedings further and examining the legality and validity of the detention order, it is important to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. The petitioner in the instant case has been detained under Section 3 of the Act, 1980, which deals with the power and pr