Manipur High Court
Thokchom Momocha Singh vs The State Of Manipur & 3 Ors on 23 July, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
1
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.07.24
16:46:41 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(Cril.)No.3 of 2025
Thokchom Momocha Singh
Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Manipur & 3 Ors.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER)
(K. Somashekar, CJ &Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J.)
23.07.2025.
[1] Heard Mr. S. Jhalajit, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner; Mr. TH. Vashum, learned GA appearing for the respondent Nos.
1 to 3 and Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned Sr. PCCG appearing for the
respondent No.4.
[2] The present writ petition has been filed by the detenue
challenging the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Ld. District
Magistrate, Thoubal, Manipur ordering his detention under the provision of
section 3(3) of the NSA, 1980, the order dated 14.02.2025 issued by the
Commissioner (Home) Government of Manipur approving the detention
order issued by the District Magistrate, Thoubal and order dated 13.03.2025
2
issued by the Commissioner(Home) Government of Manipur confirming the
order of detention and ordering for detaining the petitioner for the period of
12(twelve) months from the date of his detention.
[3] During the course of hearing of this case, the learned counsel
for the petitioner advanced only one ground for assailing the impugned
detention orders. It has been submitted that soon after receiving the
grounds of detention, the petitioner submitted a representation dated
24.02.2025 addressed to the Secretary Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs(Department of Internal Security), North Block, New Delhi-
110001 through the Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa.
According to the learned counsel, the said representation was forwarded
by the Jail Authority as well as by the concerned officials of the State
Government to the concerned authority of the Central Government after a
period of 11(eleven) days from the date of receipt of the said representation.
It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this
factum is clearly reflected at paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed
on behalf of the respondent No.4.
[4] The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted
that the delay of 11(eleven) days in forwarding/transmitting the
representation submitted by the petitioner to the appropriate authority has
infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India, which mandates for affording to the
petitioner to make a representation against his detention at the earliest
3
possible time. Accordingly, the learned counsel submitted that the delay in
forwarding the representation vitiates the impugned detention order.
[5] Mr. TH. Vashum, learned GA appearing for respondent Nos.
1 to 3 fairly submitted that he has received the relevant official files and on
perusal of the same, it is found that the Jail Authority as well as the
concerned authorities of the State Government took 11(eleven) days in
transmitting/forwarding the said representation submitted by the petitioner
to the appropriate authority and that no explanation has been recorded in
the file for such delay. The learned GA further submitted that any
appropriate order as deemed fit and proper may be passed by this Court.
[6] In the case of “Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik vs Union
Of India and Ors.” reported in AIR 1989 SCC 1403, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held as under:
“9. Thus when it is emphasised and re-emphasised by
a series of decisions of this Court that a representation
should be considered with reasonable expedition, it is
imperative on the part of every authority, whether in
merely transmitting or dealing with it, to discharge that
obligation with all reasonable promptness and diligence
without giving room for any complaint of remissness,
indifference or avoidable delay because the delay,
caused by slackness on the part of any authority, will
ultimately result in the delay of the disposal of the
representation which in turn may invalidate the order of
detention as having infringed the mandate of Art. 22(5)
of the Constitution.
4
10. A contention similar to one pressed before us was
examined by this Court in Vijay Kumar’s case (AIR 1982
SC 1023) (supra) wherein the facts were that the
representation of the detenu therein dated 29-7-81 was
forwarded to Government by the Superintendent of Jail
on the same day by post followed by a wireless
message, but according, to the Government, the
representation was not received by them. Thereafter, a
duplicate copy was sent by the Jail Superintendent on
being requested and the same was, received by the
Government on 12-8-81. Considering the time lag of 14
days in the given circumstances of that case, this Court
though overlooked the same and allowed the Writ
Petition on the subsequent time lag, made the following
observation:
“The Jail authority is merely a communicating
channel because the representation has to
reach the Government which enjoys the power
of revoking the detention order. The
intermediary authorities who are
communicating authorities have also to move,
with an amount of promptitude so that the
statutory guarantee of affording earliest
opportunity of making the representation and
the same reaching the Government is
translated into action. The corresponding
obligation of the State to consider the
representation cannot be whittled down by
merely saying that much time was lost in the
transit. If the Government enacts a law like the
present Act empowering certain authorities to
make the detention order and also
5simultaneously makes a statutory provision of
affording the earliest opportunity to the detenu
to make his representation against his
detention, to the Government and not the
detaining authority, of necessity the State
Government must gear up its own machinery to
see that in these cases the representation
reaches the Government as quickly as possible
and it is considered by the authorities with
equal promptitude. Any slackness in this
behalf not properly explained would be denial
of the protection conferred by the statute and
would result in invalidation of the order.”
11. Reverting to the instant case, we hold that the
above observation in Vijay Kumar’s case will squarely
be applicable to the facts herein. Indisputably the
Superintendent of Central Prison of Bombay to whom
the representation was handed over by the detenu on
16.6.88 for mere on-ward transmission to the Central
Government has callously ignored and kept it in cold
storage unattended for a period of 7 days, and as a
result of that, the representation reached the
Government 11 days after it was handed over to the Jail
Superintendent. Why the representation was retained
by the Jail Superintendent has not at all been explained
in spite of the fact that this Court has permitted the
respondent to explain the delay in this appeal, if not
before the High Court.
12. In our view, the supine indifference, slackness and
callous attitude on the part of the Jail Superintendent
who had unreasonably delayed in transmitting the
6
representation as an intermediary, had ultimately
caused undue delay in the disposal of the appellant’s
representation by the Government which received the
representation 11 days after it was handed over to the
Jail Superintendent by the detenu. This avoidable and
unexplained delay has resulted in rendering the
continued detention of the appellant illegal and
constitutionally impermissible.”
[7] Taking into consideration, the undisputed fact that the
concerned authorities of the State of Manipur took 11(eleven) days in
forwarding/transmitting the representation submitted by the petitioner
against his detention order to the concerned authority of the Central
Government, we are of the viewed that there has been supine indifference,
slackness and callous attitude on the part of the State Government, which
had unreasonably delayed in transmitting the representation submitted by
the petitioner and ultimately caused undue delay in disposal of the
petitioner’s representation by the concerned official of the Central
Government. We are also conscious of the fact that the authorities have not
even bothered to give any explanation for the undue and inordinate delay
in forwarding the said representation. Accordingly, we come to the
conclusion that the inaction on the part of authorities of the State
Government has infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner
guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to have his
representation considered at the earliest.
7
[8] Taking into consideration the admitted facts of the present
case and also principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
“Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India” (Supra), we are
satisfied that the inordinate delay on the part of the authorities in forwarding
or transmitting the representation submitted by the petitioner has rendered
the continued detention of the petitioner illegal. Accordingly, the impugned
detention order dated 06.02.2025, the approval order dated 14.02.2025 and
the Confirmation order dated.03.2025 are hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the authorities are directed to release the petitioner from his
detention forthwith unless his continued detention is required in connection
with any other cases pending against him.
[9] Whereas in a given peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case and so also the detention order rendered by the District Magistrate,
Thoubal are concerned, it is deemed appropriate to refer citations as
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:
In (2009) 11 SCC 438 in the case of Thahira Haris & others V.
Government of Karnataka & others. b) Constitution of India-Arts, 22(5)
& (6)-detention order- Rights of a detenue-Held, detenu has right to be
supplied with all documents, statements and other materials relied upon in
grounds of detention without delay- Predominant object of communication
grounds of detention is to enable detenu at the earlies opportunity to make
effective and meaningful representation against his detention-Further held,
on proper construction of cl(5) of Art.22 r/w S. 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act,
it is imperative for valid continuance of detention that the detenu must be
supplied with all documents, statements and other materials relied upon in
the grounds of detention- In the instant case, admittedly, the relied upon
document, the detention order of the mastermind was not supplied to the
8detenu and the detenu was prevented from making effective representation
which violated his constitutional right under Cl.(5) of Art.22–Hence,
impugned detention order quashed-COFEPOSA, 1974, S.8. ;
In Criminal Appeal No.322 of 1987 decided on 28.07.1987 in the
case of Mohinuddin V. District Magistrate, Beed 7 ors Case Note:
Constitution- detention-Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 and
Article 22(5) of Constitution of India- detention Order challenged -appellant
detained under Section 3(2)– State to satisfy Court that detention of detenu
was not only in conformity with mandatory requirements of Act but also
strictly in accord with constitutional safeguards embodied in Article 22(5)-
representation made by appellant addressed to Chief Minister could not lie
unattended to in portals of Secretariat while Chief Minister was attending to
other political affairs-Government could not keep representation in archives
of Secretariat till Advisory Board submitted its report-no explanation for
inordinate delay in consideration of representation made by appellant-
failure on part of Government to discharge its obligations under Article
22(5)-wholly unexplained and unduly long delay in disposal of
representation by State Government-detention of appellant illegal-appeal
allowed; In Criminal Appeal Nos. 755, 756, 757, 759, 760, 762, 763 and
764 of 2011 decided on 05.04.2011: Case Note: Criminal – Unlawful
Detention – High Court dismissed Habeas Corpus petition filed by wife of
detenu – Hence, this Appeal – Whether, Detention Order was correctly passed
– Held, a perusal of grounds of detention showed that no details had been
given about alleged similar cases in which bail was allegedly granted by
concerned Court -Further, date of alleged bail orders had not been mentioned,
nor bail application number – Moreover, whether bail orders were passed in
respect of co-accused on same case was also not mentioned – All that had
been stated in grounds of detention was that in similar cases bails were
granted by courts – However, in absence of other details, said statement was
mere ipse dixit, and could not be relied upon – Hence, detention order in
question could not be sustained – Appeal allowed;
9
In Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2013(Arising out of SLP
(Cril.)No.1359 of 2013 decided on 02.04.2013: Abdul Nasar Adam Ismail
through Abdul Basheer Adam Ismail Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors:
Customs – Detention – Challenge against thereto – Section 108 of Customs
Act, 1962; Article 22 (5) of Constitution of India, 1950 – Order of detention
passed by Customs Authorities directing Petitioner’s detention with a view
to preventing him in future from smuggling goods – Whether delay by
Customs Authority vitiated order of detention? Held, it was observed by
Apex Court in present case that Article 22 (5) of Constitution casts a legal
obligation on the Government to consider detenu’s representation as early
as possible. Though, no time limit is prescribed for disposal of
representation, constitutional imperative is that, it must be disposed of as
soon as possible. There should be no supine indifference, slackness or
callous attitude. Any unexplained delay would be a breach of constitutional
imperative and it would render continued detention of detenu illegal. That
does not, however, mean that every day’s delay in dealing with the
representation of the detenu has to be explained. Explanation offered must
be reasonable indicating that there was no slackness or indifference.
Though, delay itself is not fatal, the delay which remains unexplained
becomes unreasonable. Delay in transmitting representation to Detaining
Authority by jail authority was not explained. There was no explanation for
inaction on part of Superintendent of Jail. Superintendent of Jail had not
filed any affidavit explaining delay. Therefore, delay, rendered continued
detention of detenu, illegal. Delay in considering representation did not
vitiate order of detention itself. Moreover as was laid down in case of Union
of India v. Harish Kumar, wherein present Court held that, detention order
passed at satisfaction of Detaining Authority on basis of material available
in no manner gets vitiated for reason of non-consideration of representation
made by the detenu to Central Government. Therefore it was held that initial
order of detention was not rendered void ab initio. Hence , order of
detention was valid. However, on account of delay in disposal of
10representation of detenu by State Government, continued detention of
detenu was rendered illegal. Detenu, was directed to be released from
detention forthwith if he was not already released from detention and was
not required in any other case.
Appeal disposed off.
In case of Union of India Vs. Ranu Bhandari reported in (2008)17
Supreme Court Cases 348
Preventive- Communication of grounds of detention- documents andmaterials to be/no to be supplied-documents relied upon by detaining
authority- Held, all such documents irrespective of whether against detenu
or in his favour and whether detenu had knowledge thereof or not, must be
furnish to detenu to enable him to make effective representation in exercise
of his right under Article 22(5)-Non-Supply of such documents would vitiate
the dentention order-COFEPOSA Act, 1974, S.3(1) (b) Preventive
detention- Right to personal liberty and individual freedom can be curtailed
by preventive detention law- But detaining authority must take into
consideration relevant materials so as to arrive at a just conclusion that
detention was necessary in public interest-when writ jurisdiction is invoked
challenging the order of preventing detention, Court should be extremely
cautious in examining whether detenu’s right had been taken away arbitrary
or not-Constitution of India, Arts. 226, 32, 22 and 14.
In case of Mehrunissa V. State of Maharastra reported in (1981)
2 SCC 709: Preventive Detention-Copies of material documents referred to
in the grounds of detention cannot be denied to the detenu on the mere
ground that the detenu was already aware of the contents of those
11documents- Held, failure to furnish such copies to the detenu on demand
vitiated the detention-Constitution of India, Article 22(5)
In the case of Ramchandra A. Kamat Vs. Union of India & others,
reported in (1980) 2 SCC 270: Preventive Detention -Representation –
When detenu demands copies of statements and documents relied upon in
the grounds of detention for making an effective representation, held, the
detaining authority must furnish them with reasonable expedition and
cannot deny the same on ground that with reasonable expedition and
cannot deny the same on the ground that sufficient details were given in the
grounds of detention- In case of unreasonable delay in supplying grounds
of detention-In case of unreasonable delay in supplying the copies,
detaining authority must explain the same and in absence of proper
explanation, the detention would be illegal-Offer of inspection of documents
twelve days after request for the copies, on facts and in absence of proper
explanation, held, fatal to the detention-Conservation of Foreign Exchange
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Section 3(1)-Constitution
of India, Article 22(5)
In the case of Kamlakar Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. State of MP & Ors,
in WP(Cril.)No.584 of 1983 decided on 07.10.1983: Criminal – validity of
detention Order – Articles 19 and 32 of Constitution of India, Conservation
of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act and
National Security Act, 1980 – Order of detention grounded on subjective
satisfaction of detaining authority with view to prevent detenue from acting
in manner prejudicial to security of city – matter relating to whether Order of
12
detention vitiated on account of taking grounds which were stale and not
proximate to time when detention Order passed and therefore they are
irrelevant and would vitiate Order of detention – no doubt these grounds are
too remote and not proximate to Order of detention and it is not open to
detaining authority to pick up old and stale incident and hold it as basis for
detention – detention Order not valid.
In the case of Shyam Bahadur Basnet Vs. The State of Manipur
in WP(Cril.)No.17 of 2023 decided on 28.02.2023 and in case of Md. Aktar
Khan Vs. State of Manipur in WP(Cril.)No.37 of 2023.
[10] The above reliance have been referred and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has addressed the issues in detail in respect of the
scope of the provision of law and therefore, it is deemed appropriate the
detention order which has been rendered by the learned District Magistrate,
Thoubal dated 06.02.2025 is suffered from infirmity and consequently, be
setting aside in the above reasons and findings.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom
[ad_1]
Source link