JUDGMENT AND ORDER

(ORAL)

(M. Sundar, CJ)

[1] Captioned ‘Writ Petition’ (‘WP’ for the sake of brevity) has been filed with a prayer for issue of a writ of habeas corpus.

[2] Writ petitioner’s spouse, one Shri Jiten Sana RK @ Nanao was arrested on 19.08.2025, remanded to judicial custody and while he remained incarcerated, ‘R-2’ (to be noted, ‘R-2’ is an abbreviation denoting ‘2nd respondent’ and similar abbreviations will been used in the instant order with regard to other respondents also) who shall be referred to as ‘detaining authority’ made ‘an order dated 17.11.2025 bearing Reference No. Crl/NSA/No. 10 of 2025’ (hereinafter ‘impugned preventive detention order’ for the sake of brevity) under ‘the National Security Act, 1980 (65 of 1980)’ (hereinafter ‘NSA’ for the sake of brevity).

[3] Writ petitioner’s spouse was arrested on 19.08.2025 in connection with FIR No. 286(08)2025 IPS on the file of Imphal Police Station for alleged offences under the ‘Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967)’ (hereinafter ‘UAPA’ for the sake of brevity and convenience). When writ petitioner’s spouse (to be noted, ‘writ petitioner’s spouse’ shall hereinafter and henceforth be referred to as ‘detenu’ for the sake of convenience and clarity) remained incarcerated, the impugned preventive detention order was made by R-2 under NSA.

[4] In the hearing today, Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, learned State counsel for R-1, R-2 and Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government (Sr. PCCG) for R-3 are before this Court.

[5] Captioned main WP was taken up and heard out with the consent of all the afore-referred counsel.

[6] In the hearing today, notwithstanding myriad grounds in the captioned WP, learned counsel for writ petitioner predicated his campaign against impugned preventive detention order on one point. This one point is, detenu sent a representation dated 26.11.2025 to R-2 (detaining authority) and made a specific request to make photocopies of the same and forward the same to the State Government as well as the Central Government but the detaining authority has admittedly not done this. This according to learned counsel for writ petitioner has caused infraction of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as the detenu’s right to make a ‘representation’ which has been repeatedly explained in terms of Constitutional philosophy by Hon’ble Supreme Court as ‘effective representation’ has been infringed.

[7] Elaborating on the aforementioned ground, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that this plea has been specifically raised in the captioned WP vide ‘Paragraph 8’ and ‘Ground (f)’ which read as follows:

Paragraph 8 ‘8. That, on 26-11-2025, the detenu submitted a representation addressed to the Respondent No. 2 thereby requesting him to revoke the impugned detention order (Annexure-N/2) issued against him on the grounds stated therein. In the said representation, the detenu specifically and categorically requested the Respondent No. 2 to obtain the photocopies of the said representation and to forward a copy each to the Respondent No. 1 and 3.’

[8] It was pointed out that affidavit-in-opposition of R-2 meets this point in ‘Paragraph 12’ and ‘Sub-paragraph (f) of Paragraph 21’ which read as follows:

Paragraph 12 ‘12. That, with reference to para No. 8 of the Writ Petition, the answering deponent humbly submits that in paragraph No. 5 of the Grounds of Detention, it has been clearly and specifically mentioned as follows:“And whereas, you are hereby informed that you have the right to make representation to the Government of Manipur as well as to the Central Government against the order of detention passed against you and you are hereby afforded the earliest opportunity for making such representation if you wish to do so. The representation is to be sent through the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa to “The Chief Secre