Manipur HC Quashes NSA Detention Over Non-Application Of Mind On UAPA Notifications

The High Court of Manipur has dealt a significant blow to executive high-handedness by quashing a preventive detention order under the National Security Act, 1980, ruling that the detaining authority's failure to verify the confirmation of a ban on an 'unlawful association' constitutes a fatal non-application of mind. In a stern reminder of constitutional safeguards, the Court held that arbitrary time-caps for filing representations violate the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mr. M. Sundar and Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma heard a habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of a detenu who remained incarcerated despite being granted default bail in the primary criminal cases. The Court scrutinized the procedural lapses in the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, focusing on the lack of rationally probative material.

Invalidation for Non-Application of Mind

The Court observed that the detention order was primarily based on the detenu's alleged membership in the KCP-Apunba, which was declared an 'unlawful association' under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. However, the detaining authority relied on a 2023 notification without checking if the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Tribunal had confirmed the ban within the mandatory six-month window. Furthermore, the detenu allegedly joined the group before it was officially declared unlawful, and no material suggested continued membership post-notification.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The impugned preventive detention order is vitiated by non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority resulting in flawed subjective satisfaction. The impugned preventive detention order proceeds on the basis that the detenu is a hardcore member of KCP-Apunba... The detaining authority should have at least checked the Official Gazette. This is more so as the 13.11.2023 notification of MHA was placed before the detaining authority on 06.04.2026 nearly 2(two) and half years after the notification."

The Bench further applied the principles laid down in Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana & Ors. ( "(2023) 9 SCC 587": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 606) to determine that the subjective satisfaction was grounded on material lacking rationally probative value, specifically the absence of the Tribunal's confirmation order.

Infraction of Constitutional Rights

The Court found that the detention order prescribed a three-week cap for submitting representations, which the Bench deemed a clear violation of Article 22(5). Relying on Premlata Sharma (Smt.) vs. District Magistrate, Mathura & Ors., the Court reiterated that the right to representation is an ongoing right.

The Court observed: "fixing of 3(three) weeks cap for sending representations is a clear infraction of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. ... All that the detenu says is that he wanted to send representation/s again (second time) which means he has been put on the wise about better and newer points or some other new circumstances, say ‘grant of default bail’ had to be projected but he respectfully did not do so owing to the 3(three) weeks cap."

The Court has following directions:

"The impugned preventive detention order dated 06.04.2026 bearing Reference No. Crl/NSA/No. 2 of 2026 made by R2 (District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur), impugned approval order dated 13.04.2026 bearing Reference No. H-14/4/2026-HD-HD made by R1/R3 and impugned confirmation order dated 27.04.2026 bearing reference No. H-14/4/2026-HD-HD made by R1/R3 are all set-aside and Ningthoujam Chalamba Singh... is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case/s."

Background

The detenu was arrested in February 2026 for alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. While his regular bail application was pending, the District Magistrate clamped the National Security Act, 1980 order on April 6, 2026. Subsequently, the State failed to file a charge sheet within 90 days or seek an extension under Section 43D(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, leading to the Trial Court granting default bail. However, the detenu remained in custody solely due to the preventive detention order. The High Court criticized the state for using National Security Act, 1980 to circumvent the regular law and order drill after "allowing the matter to slip through its hands." The Court also clarified that Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must now be read as Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the purposes of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 applications.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P. (Crl.) No. 22 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MNHC:221-DB
Case Title: Ningthoujam Memma Devi Vs. The State of Manipur & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Jhalajit Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. Chittaranjan, Additional Advocate General; Mr. A. Priyokumar Sharma, Advocate; Mr. W. Darakeshwar, Sr. PCCG

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAN) 94