Detenu Freed: Manipur HC Strikes Down NSA Order Over "Lost" Representation

In a sharp rebuke to procedural lapses in preventive detention, the High Court of Manipur at Imphal has quashed a detention order under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980. A division bench led by Chief Justice Mr. M. Sundar and Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh ruled on March 12, 2026, in Smt. Laishram Nilajit Shija v. State of Manipur & Ors. (W.P. (Crl.) No. 1 of 2026) that failing to forward a detenu's representation to higher authorities—and thus excluding it from Advisory Board scrutiny—fatally undermines constitutional safeguards.

The petitioner, Smt. Laishram Nilajit Shija , wife of the detenu Shri Jiten Sana RK @ Nanao , filed a habeas corpus petition challenging her husband's continued incarceration solely under the NSA order.

From UAPA Arrest to NSA Lockdown

The saga began on August 19, 2025, when the detenu was arrested in connection with FIR No. 286(08)2025 at Imphal Police Station under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. While in judicial custody, the District Magistrate, Imphal West (R-2, the detaining authority), issued a preventive detention order on November 17, 2025 (Ref: Crl/NSA/No. 10 of 2025) under NSA. This was approved by the State Government on November 25, 2025, and confirmed on December 15, 2025, after Advisory Board review.

The court noted the detenu, a Class 12-educated resident of Pangei Lairam Mapal, Imphal East, remained detained purely under NSA post default bail in the UAPA case.

Petitioner's Core Grievance: A Representation in Limbo

Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba , zeroed in on the detenu's November 26, 2025, representation to the detaining authority (R-2). It explicitly requested photocopies be sent to the State Government (R-1) and Union of India (R-3). R-2 rejected it on December 1, 2025, but crucially, did not forward copies as asked.

A second representation on December 8, 2025, to the Advisory Board Chairman was forwarded by the Inspector General of Prisons to state and central authorities on December 9 and 15, respectively, and rejected later. However, the Advisory Board, which met on December 8, 2025, proceeded assuming no representation existed , robbing the detenu of review.

Counsel argued this breached Article 22(5) 's right to "effective representation," especially since grounds of detention misleadingly imposed time limits (12 days to detaining authority, 3 weeks to governments) for submissions.

State's Defense: "Follow the Procedure"

State counsel Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai (for R-1 & R-2) countered via affidavit, claiming grounds of detention (November 20, 2025) clearly informed the detenu to route representations through the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa . No duty existed to photocopy and forward, they said. Central counsel Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma (for R-3) noted the second representation was duly considered and rejected.

The state highlighted the second representation's processing, insisting procedures were followed.

Court's Razor-Sharp Legal Dissection

Drawing on Supreme Court precedents, the bench dismantled the state's stance. In Amir Shad Khan v. L. Hmingliana ((1991) 4 SCC 39), under COFEPOSA, the apex court held detaining authorities must forward requested copies to governments, or risk vitiating detention: "refusal to accede to their request would be wholly unreasonable and in total disregard of the right conferred on the detenu by Article 22(5)" .

Here, the first representation's omission meant the Advisory Board lacked it during its December 8 meeting, per Section 10 NSA , which mandates placing grounds and any representation before the Board within three weeks.

The court also invalidated time limits in grounds of detention, citing Premlata Sharma v. District Magistrate ((1998) 4 SCC 260): no limitation bars representations while detention persists. This echoed the bench's prior ruling in Mutum Ranjan Meitei v. District Magistrate (2026), where similar flaws led to release.

Chief Justice Sundar emphasized the detenu's "average and mediocre literacy level," noting he was "lulled into the belief" by confusing instructions that his timely first representation would reach the Board.

As other reports note, the bench observed: “the Hon'ble Advisory Board has proceed[ed] on the basis that the detenu has not made any representation. This means that the detenu has lost his valuable constitutional right.”

Key Observations from the Bench

“This is a clear infraction of sacrosanct constitutional right enshrined in Article 22(5) read with sanctified statutory right codified vide Section 10 of NSA.”

“Detenus may be literate or illiterate... if they make a request to the authorities which have the facilities to take out copies to do so and forward them... refusal... would be wholly unreasonable.” (quoting Amir Shad Khan)

“There can be no period of limitation regarding exercise of the right of a detenu to make a representation... so long as the preventive detention order continues to operate.” (following Premlata Sharma)

Liberty Restored: Orders Quashed, Detenu Freed

The court allowed the writ, setting aside: - NSA detention order (17.11.2025), - State approval (25.11.2025), - Confirmation (15.12.2025).

Shri Jiten Sana RK @ Nanao was directed for immediate release from Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa, if not needed elsewhere. No costs.

This ruling reinforces procedural sanctity in preventive detention, potentially impacting NSA/UAPA cases where representations vanish into bureaucracy. For Manipur's volatile security landscape, it underscores: liberty trumps technicalities.