Gauhati HC Quashes NSA Detention Of Pranab Doley, Citing Undisclosed Acquittals And An Unconsidered Detailed Representation

The petitioner challenged his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (“NSA”), ordered on 30 July 2026.

The grounds relied on 13 criminal cases, alleged protest-related violence, foreign travel and foreign-exchange remittances.

The petitioner asserted that he had been acquitted in nine cases, discharged in one, and that other proceedings were stayed, pending evidence, or under investigation.

He was granted bail on 29 July 2026; the detention order followed the next day.

After submitting a handwritten representation on 4 August, he obtained access to family and counsel pursuant to a court order and submitted a further representation on 10 August.

The State rejected the first representation, but the second was not considered.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 8(1) of the NSA safeguard a detenu’s right to be informed of the grounds of detention and to make an effective representation; material relied on for detention must therefore be disclosed.

Under Section 3(2), preventive detention requires a properly formed subjective satisfaction, which is vitiated if material facts likely to affect that satisfaction are withheld or ignored.

Relying on *Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal v. Police Commissioner*, (1989) 2 SCC 370, the Court reiterated that non-placement of material facts, including acquittals, may invalidate the detention order.

The Court also relied on *Satyapriya Sonkar v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini*, 1999 SCC OnLine All 1628, for the proposition that a detenu may make successive representations and that the appropriate authorities must consider them.

Preventive detention must also retain a live and proximate link to the alleged prejudicial conduct.

The Court found that the detention materials did not disclose the petitioner’s acquittals and discharge, and the State did not establish that the relevant case statuses had been placed before the detaining authority.

The State’s later assertion that witnesses had turned hostile or been intimidated was neither included in the grounds nor supported by material supplied to the petitioner.

The authorities supplied FIRs but not charge-sheets or other relied-on investigation materials; other allegations, including road blockades and damage to public property, lacked particulars. These omissions impaired the petitioner’s ability to make an effective representation.

The Court treated the 10 August representation, made after access to family and counsel, as the petitioner’s detailed representation and held that its non-forwarding and non-consideration were fatal to continued detention.

The foreign travel and remittances were not linked to anti-State activity or the petitioner’s protest conduct, and the authorities failed to explain the delay or establish a continuing nexus.

The Court further observed that the detaining authority had not applied its mind to whether ordinary criminal law was insufficient.

It quashed the detention order and grounds of detention dated 30 July 2026 and directed that the petitioner be released from preventive detention forthwith.