JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM TELEN KOMDate: 2025.11.20 Sl. No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL W.P.(Cril.)No.31 of 2025 Smt. Kongbam Bijeta Devi Petitioner Vs.

State of Manipur & 2 Ors.

Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH (ORDER)

(Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ)

19.11.2025.

[1] This order will now dispose of the captioned ‘Writ Petition (‘WP’ for the sake of brevity).

[2] Captioned WP has been filed with a Habeas Corpus plea and the proceedings/orders made by this Court in the first listing of captioned WP on 17.10.2025 is follows:

‘[1]A preventive detention order dated 01.08.2025 bearing reference No. Cril. NSA Case No. 12 of 2025 made by second respondent (District Magistrate, Thoubal District) has been assailed.

[2]The afore-referred preventive detention order shall be referred to as ‘impugned preventive detention order’ and second respondent will be referred to as ‘detaining authority’.

[3]Impugned preventive detention order has been made under the ‘National Security Act, 1980 (Act No. 65 of 1980)’ (hereinafter and henceforth ‘NSA’ for the sake of brevity and convenience).

[4]Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner’s representation has not been placed before the Advisory Board and therefore, there is violation of Section 10 of NSA.

[5]Prima facie case for issuing notice made out.

[6]Issue notice to respondents.

[7]Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R1 and R2 and Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government (Sr. PCCG) on the VC accepts notice for R3. State Counsel requests for time to get instructions and revert to this court.

[8]List a fortnight hence.

[9]List on 07.11.2025.’

[3] The afore-referred 17.10.2025 proceedings/orders shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of instant order. This also means that the short forms, abbreviations and short references used in 17.10.2025 proceedings/orders shall continue to be used in the instant order.

[4] In the hearing today, Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner, Mr. TH. Vashum, learned State counsel for R1 and R2(to be noted, ‘R1’ & ‘R2’ denote ‘first respondent’ and ‘second respondent’ respectively and similar abbreviation shall be used for third respondent also).

[5] Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government(Sr. PCCG) for R3 is before us on the VC platform. To be noted, Mr. PH. Sanajaoba, learned counsel for writ petitioner and Mr.

Th. Vashum, learned State counsel for R1 and R2 are before us in the physical court.

[6] This Court with the consent of all the afore-referred three counsel (without insisting on separate affidavits in opposition qua R2 and R3) took up the main WP and heard out the same. It is also to be noted that the spouse of the detenue is writ petitioner before us in the captioned writ petition.

[7] As regards the infraction of section 10 of NSA point/ground which has been captured in our 17.10.2025 proceedings, Mr. TH. Vashum, learned State counsel produced the State file and this court had the benefit of perusing the same. A careful perusal of the State file (which inter-alia contains the proceedings as well as the report of the Advisory Board), it comes to light that the representations of the writ petitioner dated 12.08.2025 have been placed before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board has considered the same. Likewise, it is also seen that report of the detaining authority has also been placed before the Advisory Board and Advisory Board has considered the same. Therefore, there is complete compliance qua Section 10 of NSA and this first ground does not come to be the aid of learned counsel for writ petitioner in his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order.

[8] Learned counsel for writ petitioner articulated the second ground. The second ground is that the literacy level of detenue is only Class-III,