Page 1 of 16

ca

REPORTABLE

Sl. No. 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1 of 2026

Smt. Laishram Nilajit Shija, aged about 39 years, W/o Shi

Jiten Sana R.K. @ Nanao, a resident of Pangei Lairam Mapal,

P.S. Pangei, District- Imphal East, Manipur, 795114.

……Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief

Secretary, Government of Manipur, Babupara, P.O. &

P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, 795001.

2. The District Magistrate, Imphal West District, P.O. &

P.S. Imphal, Manipur, 795001.

3. The Union of India, through the Secretary to the

Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs

Department of Internal Security, North Block, New

Delhi.

……Respondents

BEFORE

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

For Petitioner :: Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, Advocate

For Respondents :: Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, Deputy

Government Advocate for respondent

Nos, 1 & 2

Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, Senior

Panel counsel for Central Government

(Sr. PCCG) for respondent No. 3

Date of Hearing :: 12.03.2026

Date of Judgment & Order :: 12.03.2026

Page 2 of 16

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

‘2

nd

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.

Page 3 of 16

[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

Page 4 of 16

‘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.’

GROUND (f)

‘f) For that, the Respondent No. 2 failed to forward the

representation (Annexure-N/4) to the Respondent No. 1 and 3

as requested by the detenu in the said representation.’

[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 Secretary, Government of Manipur” in respect of

representation to the Government of Manipur and to “The

Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs

Page 5 of 16

(Department of Internal Security)” in respect of

representation to the Central Government.”

In view of the above clear intimation, the detenu was fully

appraised of his constitutional right under Article 22(5) of

the Constitution of India and the statutory safeguards

under Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 to

submit representations to both the State Government and

the Central Government. It is respectfully submitted that

the procedure for submission and transmission of

representation was expressly communicated to the detenu.

Therefore, if the detenu desired that copies of his

representation be forwarded to the Chief Secretary,

Government of Manipur and to the Secretary, Government

of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Internal

Security), it was incumbent upon him to address and

submit the same in the manner already specified in the

Grounds of Detention, i.e., through the Superintendent of

Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. It is further submitted that the

answering respondent has complied with all constitutional

and statutory requirements by clearly informing the detenu

of his rights and the prescribed mode of submitting

representations. There is no statutory obligation cast upon

the District Magistrate to obtain photocopies of the

representation on behalf of the detenu for onward

transmission when a specific procedure had already been

laid down and communicated to him.

Sub-paragraph (f) of Paragraph

‘21(f) The answering deponent humbly submits that there is no

statutory obligation cast upon the District Magistrate for onward

transmission when a specific procedure had already been laid down

and communicated to him. Moreover, the concerned authority had

forwarded the representation to the Commissioner (Home), Govt. of

Manipur on 09-12-2025 and to the Secretary, Ministry of Home

Affairs, Govt. of India on 15-12-2025 respectively.’

Page 6 of 16

[9] In response to the afore-referred ground on which learned

counsel for writ petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned

preventive detention order, Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, learned State counsel

adverting to the affidavit-in-opposition of R-2 drew our attention to the

afore-referred Paragraph 12 as well as sub-paragraph (f) of Paragraph 21

and submitted that R-2 is under no statutory obligation to transmit

detenu’s representation to State and Central Governments. To be noted,

post 26.11.2025 representation to the detaining authority, the detenu had

made another representation dated 08.12.2025 addressed to Hon’ble

Chairman of the Advisory Board and this ‘08.12.2025 representation’ which

shall be referred to as ‘2

nd

representation’ for convenience was sent by the

Inspector General of Prisons to the State Government as well as to the

Central Government under cover of letter dated 09.12.2025 and

15.12.2025 respectively.

[10] This Court, for the sake of completion of facts, deems it

appropriate to capture the obtaining factual position that afore-referred

26.11.2025 representation of detenu which shall henceforth be referred to

as ‘1

st

representation’ for the sake of clarity and specificity (which was

admittedly not forwarded by the detaining authority to the State and

Central Governments) was rejected by the detaining authority in and by

an order dated 01.12.2025 bearing Reference No. Cril/NSA/No.10 of 2025.

As regards the 2

nd

representation of the detenu, namely representation

dated 08.12.2025 which was addressed to the Hon’ble Chairman of the

Page 7 of 16

Advisory Board and forwarded to the State and Central Governments by

the Inspector General of Prisons in the aforesaid manner came to be

rejected by the State Government on 15.12.2025 vide order bearing

Reference no. No. H-1401/23/2025-HD-HD and it came to be rejected by

the Central Government vide order dated 24.12.2025 bearing Reference

No. II/15023/36/2025-NSA.

[11] This Court, having captured necessary facts which are

imperative for appreciating instant order, now embarks upon the legal drill

of considering the point raised by learned counsel for writ petitioner and

submission to the contrary made by learned State counsel for R-1 and R-

2. To be noted, as regards R-3, Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned Sr.

PCCG submitted that the role of R-3 is limited to considering and disposing

of the representation which has been done and details of disposal

(rejection) have been captured supra in the preceding paragraph.

[12] Reverting to the legal drill at hand, learned counsel for writ

petitioner pressed into service a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court being

Amir Shad Khan Vs. L. Hmingliana and others with Aziz Ahmed

Khan alias Aziz Mohd. Khan Vs. L. Hmingliana and others reported

in (1991) 4 SCC 39 for the proposition that when a person placed under

detention makes a request that his representation be forwarded to the

Central and State Governments, if the detaining authority refuses to do so

it is an infraction of Article 22(5) which vitiates a preventive detention

order. Amir Shad Khan is a case of preventive detention under the

Page 8 of 16

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities

Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) and a case of seizure of gold bars. In Amir Shad

Khan, Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that the detaining authority as well

as the State Government had refused to send the detenu’s representation

to Central Government and this has robbed the detenu of constitutional

right under Article 22(5) as detenu lost a valuable right of having his

representation considered by the Central Government. Relevant paragraph

in Amir Shad Khan is paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows:

‘10. It must be realised that when a person is placed under

detention he has certain handicaps and if he makes a request

that a representation prepared by him may be forwarded to the

Central Government as well as the State Government for

consideration after taking out copies thereof it would be a denial

of his right to represent to the Central Government if the

Detaining Authority as well as the State Government refuse to

accede to his request and omit to forward his representation to

the Central Government for consideration. It is difficult to

understand why such a technical and rigid view should be taken

by the concerned authorities in matters of personal liberty where

a person is kept in preventive detention without trial. Detenus

may be literate or illiterate, they may have access to legal advice

or otherwise, they may or may not be in a position to prepare

more than one copy of the representation and if they make a

request to the authorities which have the facilities to take out

copies to do so and forward them for consideration to the Central

Government, would it be just and fair to refuse to do so? In such

circumstances 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) of the Constitution read with Section 11

of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Detaining

Page 9 of 16

Authority as well as the State Government were not justified in

taking a hypertechnical stand that they were under no obligation

to take out copies of the representations and forward them to

the Central Government. We think that this approach on the part

of the Detaining Authority and the State Government has robbed

the appellants of their constitutional right under Article 22(5)

read with Section 11 of the Act to have their representation

considered by the Central Government. The request of the

detenus was not unreasonable. On the contrary the action of the

Detaining Authority and the State Government was unreasonable

and resulted in a denial of the appellants’ constitutional right.

The impugned detention orders are, therefore, liable to be

quashed.’

[13] In the case at hand, the matter does not rest on Amir Shad

Khan principle alone. The reason is, if the detaining authority had

forwarded the detenu’s 1

st

representation dated 26.11.2205 to the State

and Central Governments as requested, i.e., as requested by the detenu

in the representation itself, which is before us, the State Government

would have, in discharge of its statutory obligation under Section 10 of

NSA would have placed the 1

st

representation before the Hon’ble Advisory

Board which sat on 08.12.2025. This Court had the benefit of perusing

the file produced by the learned State counsel and this Court finds that

the Hon’ble Advisory Board has proceed on the basis that the detenu has

not made any representation. This means that the detenu has lost his

valuable constitutional right of having his 1

st

representation dated

26.11.2025 considered by the Hon'ble Advisory Board. 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.

Page 10 of 16

[14] There is another very important aspect of the matter. In the

grounds of detention dated 20.11.2025, in the penultimate paragraph, the

detaining authority has made it clear that a representation from the detenu

will be placed before the Hon'ble Advisory Board constituted under Section

9 of NSA. To be noted, this is vide Paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention

dated 20.11.2025 which reads as follows.

‘6. Further, you are informed that you have the right to make

representation to the detaining authority within 12(twelve) days,

from the date of detention or till the order is approved by the

State Government, whichever is earlier. The representation is to

be sent to the District Magistrate, Imphal West. Representation

if any, would be placed before the Advisory Board (Constituted

per Section 9, NSA) within a period of 3(three weeks from the

date of your detention and such other documents/papers in

connection with your detention, as the Government is bound

under the law to produce before the Board for its consideration.’

Therefore, it is clear as daylight that the detenu was lulled

into the belief that his representation being 1

st

representation dated

26.11.2025 (sent by him to the detaining authority) would be placed

before the Hon'ble Advisory Board but that did not happen. This is dehors

the request of detenu to detaining authority to forward copies of his 1

st

representation to the State and Central Governments. In the case at hand,

this Court finds that literacy level of the detenu is Class -12 (Higher

Secondary School)

[15] Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that, given the

average and mediocre literacy level of the detenu, he was also lulled into

Page 11 of 16

the belief that he cannot send any representation to the State Government

or the Central Government beyond 3 (three) weeks from the date of his

detention. This is owing to Paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention which

reads as follows:

‘5. 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.

sThe representation is to be sent through Superintendent of

Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa to “The Chief Secretary, Government

of Manipur” in respect of representation to the Government of

Manipur and to “The Secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Internal Security) North

Block, New Delhi-110001” In respect of representation to the

Central Government and should be submitted within 3(three)

weeks from the date of detention.’

[16] As would be evident from paragraphs 5 and 6 of grounds of

detention (extracted and reproduced supra), the detaining authority has

fixed time frames for sending representations to the detaining authority,

State Government as well as the Central Government. This is the reason

why the detenu has sent the 2

nd

representation i.e., representation dated

08.12.2025 to the Hon'ble Advisory Board. Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Premlata Sharma (Smt.) vs. District Magistrate, Mathura & Ors.’

reported in (1998) 4 SCC 260 held that there can be no period of

limitation regarding exercise of the right of a detenu to make a

representation and corresponding obligation of the Central Government to

consider the same for deciding upon the question of order of detention as

Page 12 of 16

such a right of a detenu and corresponding/axiomatic obligation of State

subsists so long as the preventive detention order continues to operate.

This Court, respectfully following Premlata principle laid down by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in order dated 11.02.2026 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 34 of 2025

(Mutum Ranjan Meitei @ Lamjingba vs District Magistrate,

Thoubal District & Ors.) reported in 2026 (2) MNLJ0 : 2026 Legal

Eagle 6 which is a case of preventive detention order couched in a

language akin to the impugned preventive detention order as regards

paragraph 5 & 6, held that fixing of timeframes for sending representations

is a clear infraction of sacrosanct Constitutional right enshrined in Article

22(5). This Court is informed that this 11.02.2026 order in W.P. (Crl.) No.

34 of 2025 has since been given effect to and the detenu has since been

enlarged. Most relevant portionss of Mutum Ranjan Meitei case are

contained in paragraph 10 & 11 and relevant portions reads as follows:

‘[10] … It has also been made clear that a detenu qua a

impugned preventive detention order is entitled to have his

representation considered as expeditiously/at the earliest. The

significant clincher is, neither the Constitution nor the long line

of authorities have either provided for or justified fixing of time

frames for making such representations. It comes to light that in

‘Premlata Sharma (Smt.) vs. District Magistrate, Mathura

& Ors.’ reported in (1998) 4 SCC 260, Hon’ble Supreme Court

has made it clear that there can be no period of limitation

regarding exercise of right of the detenu to make a

representation and corresponding obligation of the Central

Government to consider the same for deciding upon the question

of order of detention as such a right of a detenu and obligation

of State subsist so long as the preventive detention order

Page 13 of 16

continues. To be noted, on facts, Premlata also arose under

NSA, a preventive detention order made under NSA was assailed

and the issue that fell for consideration is refusal to send detenu’s

representation to Central Government on the ground that the

power of the revocation of a detention order is vested only in the

State Government under Section 14 of NSA. It is in this context

that in Premlata, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the ratio

that the right of detenu to make a representation and

corresponding obligation of the Government to consider the

same expeditiously (at the earliest) subsist so long as the

preventive detention order operates/detention continues. In the

case on hand, therefore, fixing of twelve days time frame qua

representation to the detaining authority and fixing of three

weeks time frame for representations to the State and Central

Governments is clearly flawed and unacceptable. On an extreme

demurer, even if the argument of learned State counsel that the

time frames were fixed as impugned preventive detention order

will be valid only for twelve days unless approved by the State

Government and the State Government has a responsibility to

place the representation before the Advisory Board within three

weeks is accepted, the same does not come to the aid of learned

State counsel in his effort to defend the impugned preventive

detention order. The reasons are, as regards twelve days, though

there may be some semblance of justification, there is absolutely

no justification as regards fixing three weeks time frame for

representation to the State Government. The reason is, Section

10 of NSA captioned ‘Reference to Advisory Board’ makes it clear

that the appropriate Government shall within 3 weeks from the

date of detention of a person place before the Advisory Board,

the grounds on which order has been made and representation,

if any. Section 10 of NSA reads as follows :

‘10. Reference to Advisory Board.—

Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, in every

case where a detention order has been made under this

Page 14 of 16

Act, the appropriate Government shall, within three weeks

from the date of detention of a person under the order,

place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under

section 9, the grounds on which the order has been made

and the representation, if any, made by the person

affected by the order, and in case where the order has

been made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (3) of

section 3, also the report by such officer under sub-section

(4) of that section.’

(underlining and bold font made /used by this

Court for ease of reference).

[11] The above makes it clear that the statute i.e. Section 10 of

NSA is clear as daylight that a State Government is under

obligation to place the representation of the detenu before the

Advisory Board only if the detenu chooses to send a

representation. To put it differently, it is axiomatic that if the

detenu does not send a representation within three weeks from

the date of detention, State Government will be under no

obligation much less a statutory obligation to place it before the

Advisory Board and the State Government cannot be found fault

with in this regard. Therefore, the argument that three weeks

time frame for representation to State Government was fixed in

grounds of detention to ensure that the representation is placed

before the Advisory Board does not hold water. The buttressing

factor is, if State Government receives a representation after

three weeks from the date of detention, it has a sacrosanct duty

to consider the same for revocation under Section 14 of NSA. To

be noted, this is a indefeasible analogy that flaws from Premlata

principle i.e., principle that detenu’s right to make a

representation and obligation/duty of State to consider the same

at the earliest subsist as long as the preventive detention order

operates/detention continues. As regards the representation to

the Central Government this three weeks phenomenon does not

exist at all and therefore the argument is a non starter.’

Page 15 of 16

[17] In instant case, the detenu did not send representations to

State and Central Governments. This Court is acutely conscious of the

obtaining factual position that the detenu’s 2

nd

representation dated

08.12.2025 sent to Hon'ble Advisory Board was sent to the State and

Central Governments by Inspector General of Prisons and the State and

Central Governments rejected the same, the details of which have been

alluded to elsewhere supra in instant order. Therefore, for the sake of

specificity and clarity, this Court deems it appropriate to write that

infraction qua Article 22(5) and Section 10 of NSA is owing to the 1

st

representation dated 26.11.2025 not being placed before the Hon'ble

Advisory Board on 08.12.2025 and Hon'ble Advisory Board proceeding on

the basis that detenu has not made any representation. To be noted, the

2

nd

representation though of the same date was after the Hon'ble Advisory

Board proceeded on the basis that detenu has not given any

representation and as alluded to supra, this Court have the benefit of

perusing the State file which contains proceedings of the Hon'ble Advisory

Board.

[18] Apropos, this Court has no hesitation in writing that the

impugned preventive detention order dated 17.11.2025 bearing Reference

No. Crl/NSA/No.10 of 2025, approval Order of State dated 25.11.2025

bearing Reference No. H-1401/23/2025-HD-HD under Section 3(4) of NSA

as well as Confirmation order dated 15.12.2025 bearing Reference No. H-

1401/23/2025-HD-HD made by the State Government under Section 12(1)

Page 16 of 16

of NSA are vitiated owing to infraction of sacrosanct constitutional right

enshrined in Article 22(5) and sanctified statutory principle codified in

Section 10 of NSA.

[19] This Court is informed by learned counsel for writ petitioner

that detenu has since been granted default bail and he now remains

incarcerated solely because of the impugned preventive detention order.

[20] Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned WP is allowed. The

impugned preventive detention order dated 17.11.2025 bearing reference

No. Crl/NSA/No.10 of 2025, made by R-2 (District Magistrate, Imphal

West), approval of the State Government dated 25.11.2025 bearing

Reference No. H-1401/23/2025-HD-HD and confirmation order of the

State Government darted 15.12.2025 bearing Reference No. H-

1401/23/2025-HD-HD are all set aside and Shri Jiten Sana RK @ Nanao,

resident of Pangei Lairam Mapal, Imphal East District Manipur, aged about

41 years now lodged in Central Jail Sajiwa, Imphal East, is directed to be

set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. There shall be no

order as to costs.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

FR/NFR

Sushil/Sandeep

P.S. I : Upload forthwith

P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court

website inter alia as the same is QR coded.