SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Manipur) 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Siddharth Mridul, C.J., Golmei Gaiphulshillu, J.
Shri Thokchom Romeschandra Singh @ Ayangba @ Nanao - Petitioner
Versus
The District Magistrate and ors. - Respondents
W.P.(Crl) No. 3 of 2024
Decided On : 25-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ch. Ngongo, Senior Advocate Assisted by Ms. S. Gangarani, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Th. Vashum, Govt. Advocate Mr. BR Sharma, CGSC

Unexplained delays in addressing a detainee's representation for release render ongoing detention unconstitutional, affirming the necessity for prompt action by authorities.

Headnote:(A) National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2) - Habeas Corpus - Petition challenging the detention of an individual under NSA due to alleged unlawful activities - The court emphasized the necessity for timely consideration of representation and noted the unexplained delay of one month in processing the petitioner’s representation, rendering the detention illegal - The court quashed the detention order and directed the release of the petitioner. (Paras 20 & 21)

(B) Preventive Detention - Any delay in considering the representation of a detainee undermines the legality of ongoing detention and must be addressed by the authorities promptly. (Paras 18 & 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained under the National Security Act, 1980 by the District Magistrate for allegedly being involved in activities detrimental to public order. The order of detention was challenged on grounds of procedural failures and the undue delay in considering his representation against the detention.

Findings of Court:
The court found the delay in handling the petitioner’s representation to be unreasonable, leading to the determination that the continued detention was unconstitutional.

Issues: The primary issues were the legality of the detention order based on the delay in processing the representation and the correctness of the claims of the petitioner that the detaining authority lacked sufficient grounds for detention.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that delays in considering representations for detention must be adequately justified by authorities, failing which the detention becomes unlawful, aligning with precedents set by the Supreme Court.

Result: Writ petition allowed; detention order quashed.

Table of Content
1. details of the petitioner's arrest and detention. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. overview of the detention grounds and legal context. (Para 4 , 5)
3. arguments against the validity of detention order. (Para 6 , 7)
4. representation for revocation made but delayed response. (Para 8 , 9)
5. contention of delay in addressing revocation requests. (Para 10 , 12)
6. respondents' defenses regarding the detention. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. discussion about delay in processing representation affecting detention. (Para 17 , 18)
8. consequences of unexplained delays in representation outcomes. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
9. conclusion: writ petition allowed, detention order quashed. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT :

Siddharth Mridul, CJ.

[1] Heard Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Gangarani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Th. Vashum, learned G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

[2] The present petition has been instituted on behalf of Shri Thokchom Romeschadra Singh @ Ayangba @ Nanao with the following prayer:

“To issue rule nisi directing the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus should not be issued and set aside the impugned order in Annexure – A/1 and A/4 to the petition and set the petitioner at liberty.”

[3] The petitioner was arrested on 05.01.2024 in connection with FIR No. 02(01)2024 HNG-PS U/S 17/20 UA(P) Act and detained under the NSA by the District Magistrate, Imphal East (respondent No. 1 herein) vide order No. Cril/NSA No. 1 of 2024 dated 30.01.2024 and lodged in the Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa on the allegation that he is an active member of the banned unlawful organization, KCP (Noyon) [KCP(N)] and a notoriously clever, hardened criminal/habitual offender who had carried out various prejudicial activities. The detention order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure –A/1), is extracted herein below:

“GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE: IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT

ORDERS

Porompat, the 30 January, 2024

No.CH/NSA/No.1 of 2024 Whereas, Superintendent of Police, Imphal East District vide letter No. C-5/12/SP 1E/2024/1447 dated, 29 January, 2024 has forwarded history sheet with relevant documents in respect of one Thokchom Romeshchandra Singh @ Ayangba@ Nanao (33 yrs/ male) S/o (L) Th. Nilachandra Singh @ Lilachandra Singh of Phubala Awang Leikai, Moirang PS/ Bishnupur, Manipur, arrested in connection with FIR No. 02(01) 2024 HNG PS U/S 17/20 UA(P) Act, for issue of detention order in respect of the above accused under National Security Act, 1980 as he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and is not possible to prevent his activities by application of ordinary laws;

Whereas, an application on behalf of the accused person Thokchom Romeshchandra Singh, aged 33 years, S/o (L) Th. Nilachandra Singh of Phubala Awang Leikai, Moirang P.S., Bishnupur District, Manipur under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for release on ball has been filed on 18 January, 2024 in the Court of the Special Judge (NIA), Imphal East at Cheirap Court Complex, Imphal, Manipur;

Whereas, SP, Imphal East has also stated in his detailed report that Shri Thokchom Romeshchandra Singh Ayangba @Nanao (33 yrs/ male) S/O (1) Th. Nilachandra Singh @ Lilachandra Singh of Phubala Awang Leikai, Moirang PS/ BPR, Manipur, being a notoriously clever as well as habitual offender and hardened criminal, there is high apprehension of releasing him on bait as the ball hearing has been fixed today, i.e., 30-01-2024;

Whereas, 1, the undersigned in the capacity of District Magistrate, Imphal East District, Manipur, am satisfied, upon examination of the detailed police report and relevant documents submitted by the SP, that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and there is likelihood of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top