The Gauhati High Court has ordered the immediate release of activist Pranab Doley, quashing his preventive detention order issued under the National Security Act, 1980 . The Division Bench, comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, ruled that the state government ’s detention order was legally unsustainable due to a series of procedural failures and the non-disclosure of critical information. The order, which had kept Doley in custody at the District Jail in Golaghat since July 30, 2026 , was found to be vitiated by the detaining authority's failure to consider the petitioner’s status in pending criminal cases and the lack of a proper mechanism for handling his legal representations.

The court identified four primary grounds for its decision: the reliance on stale criminal cases, the failure to provide essential documents to the petitioner, the failure to address a crucial second representation submitted by Doley, and the absence of any demonstrable link between his foreign travels and activities prejudicial to state security. The High Court emphasized that the state government had attempted to use the National Security Act as a shortcut, bypassing established criminal procedures.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that the detention order was built upon a list of 13 criminal cases registered against Doley between 2017 and 2026 . However, the court discovered that in nine of these instances, the petitioner had already been acquitted, and in one case, he had been discharged. Despite these developments, the detaining authority had not been informed of the outcomes of these cases, nor had it sought updated information regarding their status before issuing the detention order. The court noted that this suppression of material facts effectively deprived the authority of the ability to make a balanced judgment on the necessity of preventive detention .

The court remarked, "The detaining authority had also turned its blind eye towards the same by not calling for information about the status of those cases." This lapse was interpreted as a sign of malice in law , suggesting that the sponsoring authorities had provided incomplete data to ensure the detention order would proceed without scrutiny. The court further noted that the state’s contention—that the acquittals were the result of witnesses turning hostile—was an allegation not substantiated by any evidence within the grounds of detention provided to the petitioner.

Procedural Omissions and Rights Violations

Beyond the issue of stale cases, the High Court highlighted a significant failure in the disclosure of documents. While the state provided copies of the First Information Reports for the 13 mentioned cases, it failed to provide copies of the corresponding charge-sheets. This omission rendered the detention grounds vague, preventing Doley from understanding the specific nature of the charges against him and, consequently, hindering his ability to prepare an effective representation against the detention order.

The court underscored that the right to make a representation is a fundamental constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 8 of the National Security Act . The bench observed that the petitioner was initially deprived of access to his legal counsel and family members, which the court had to rectify through a separate interim order on August 7, 2026 . Once Doley finally secured legal advice, he submitted a detailed second representation on August 10, 2026 . The state’s failure to dispose of this second submission was considered a critical flaw in the legal process.

"The non-disposal of the second representation dated 10.08.2026, submitted by the petitioner, is held to be fatal to the continued preventive detention of the petitioner," the court stated in its judgment. By ignoring this secondary, more comprehensive representation, the state violated the established procedural mandates governing preventive detention , which require that every representation be considered at the earliest opportunity by the appropriate authorities, including the Central Government , the State Government , and the Advisory Board .

Scrutiny of Foreign Exchange and Travel Claims

The detention order had also alleged that Doley engaged in suspicious foreign financial transactions and travel, which the state claimed were inimical to the security of the country. However, the court found these allegations to be broad and disconnected from any specific, actionable illegal conduct. The judgment noted that the detaining authority failed to detail which specific foreign visits or transactions were linked to the protest activities or how they threatened the integrity or security of India.

The court held that repetitive foreign travel, by itself, is not an act that warrants preventive detention or justifies the curtailment of fundamental rights. Similarly, the documented foreign remittances were found to lack any " live and proximate link " to the protest activities cited in the detention grounds. Because the state could not substantiate how these financial inflows were used for illegal activities, the court concluded that the government had failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of future prejudicial activity that would necessitate the drastic measure of preventive detention .

Ruling and Immediate Consequences

The High Court concluded that the detention was not sustainable under the facts and the law. Because the court found that the order suffered from multiple fatal flaws—including the reliance on stale information, the withholding of relevant investigation documents, and the failure to consider the petitioner’s successive representations—it found it unnecessary to address the other arguments raised by the petitioner’s legal team.

With this order, the court has set aside both the initial detention order and the subsequent grounds of detention. The authorities have been directed to set Pranab Doley at liberty immediately. This ruling serves as a firm reminder that the power of preventive detention must be exercised with extreme caution, adhering strictly to procedural fairness and ensuring that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based on a transparent and complete assessment of all relevant, updated, and material facts. The case underscores the judiciary's role in preventing the misuse of preventive detention laws against activists and citizens, ensuring that the state cannot use such tools to bypass the standard rigors of criminal prosecution. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the matter, finalizing the legal dispute surrounding the activist's custody.