Mentioning the specific period of detention in the initial order under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, is mandatory; failure to do so renders the order void ab initio and cannot be cured by subsequent extension orders.

ORDER

Per: Justice Alok Awasthi

In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/detenu has assailed the illegality, validity and propriety of the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 - District Magistrate/Collector, Indore under sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be detained in the Central Jail, Indore. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the same authority extending the period of detention by three months i.e., upto 15.05.2026. That, the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.3 is in violation of the provisions of the Act and in violation of law established by the Apex Court and High Court of Madhya Pradesh in catena of judgements.

2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that petitioner is in the judicial custody since 04.08.2025 at Central Jail, Indore, in pursuant to the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. Subsequently, the State Government approved the detention order issued through its order No.F 31-75/2025/2/C-1, Bhopal dated 04.12.2025 and after approval by the Advisory Board, the State Government vide order No. F 31-75/2025/2/C-1, Bhopal dated 04.12.2025 confirmed the detention order for a period of 03 months from the detention ending date i.e. 15.02.2026. Further, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-02, Urban, District Indore, through his letter No.Police Commissioner/Zone-02/Urban/Reader/II/38-A/2025 dated 20.01.2026, while forwarding the report of the Station House Officer of Khajrana Police Station, recommended that the detention period of the petitioner to be extended. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 passed an order dated 22.01.2026 stating that for maintaining peace and law and order, it is necessary for the present petitioner to be kept in judicial custody therefore, the period of judicial custody was then extended up to 15.05.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the detaining authority failed to specify the period of detention in the initial order dated 04.08.2025 itself, which is a mandatory requirement under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. He submitted that non-mentioning of the period renders the detention order void ab initio. He placed reliance on the judgements of the Apex Court and this Court in support of his contention.

4. Learned A.A.G. for the respondents/State supported the detention orders and submitted that even if the initial order did not mention the period, the same was subsequently specified in the extension order and the total period of detention has not exceeded the maximum limit prescribed under the Act therefore, the order cannot be quashed on the said ground.. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 15.11.2025 and not on 04.08.2025 as alleged, hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

6. Section 3 of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-

"3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.-

(1) The Central Government or the State Government may:

(a) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the