Manipur HC quashes NSA detention for failing to provide relied-on documents in detenu’s language and imposing a three-week representation deadline

The petitioner, father of the detenu Phanjoubam Rabi Meitei @ Luwangamba, challenged the preventive detention order dated 21 April 2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal East under the National Security Act, 1980 (“NSA”), along with the State Government’s approval orders dated 29 April and 1 May 2026 and confirmation order dated 27 May 2026.

The detenu had studied only up to Class II and was conversant only with Manipuri in the Meitei Mayek script.

On 4 May 2026, he requested translated copies of the detention order, grounds of detention and the documents referred to therein.

The authorities subsequently supplied translated copies of only the detention order and grounds on 3 June 2026, but did not translate or supply any of the 11 documents listed in the grounds of detention.

Whether failure to furnish translated copies of the documents relied upon or referred to in the grounds of detention, in the language and script understood by the detenu, violated the detenu’s constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Whether prescribing a three-week time limit for submitting representations to the State and Central Governments amounted to an impermissible restriction on the detenu’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5).

Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires that the grounds of preventive detention be communicated to the detenu in a manner enabling an effective representation.

Under Sections 3(2), 3(4), 8, 10, 12(1) and 14 of the NSA, the detention order, its approval and confirmation, the reference to the Advisory Board, and the power of revocation are governed by statutory safeguards.

In Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 427, the Supreme Court held that oral explanation is insufficient; the grounds must be supplied in writing in a language understood by the detenu.

Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 2 SCC 413, extended this principle to translated copies of the grounds and supporting material.

Under Prem Lata Sharma v. District Magistrate, Mathura, (1998) 4 SCC 260, the detenu’s right to make a representation, and the Government’s corresponding obligation to consider it, continues so long as the detention order remains operative; no limitation period can be imposed on that right.

Section 10 of the NSA requires the appropriate Government to place the grounds and any representation before the Advisory Board within three weeks; it does not impose a three-week limitation on the detenu’s right to make a representation.

The Court found that the detenu’s limited literacy and lack of familiarity with English were undisputed, and that the State had translated only the detention order and grounds, not any of the 11 documents identified in the grounds of detention.

Applying Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel and Powanammal, the Court held that mere oral explanation could not substitute for written translations in the language understood by the detenu.

The non-supply of translated copies impaired the detenu’s ability to understand the material against him and make an effective representation, thereby violating Article 22(5).

The Court separately held that the three-week stipulation was legally impermissible.

Section 10 of the NSA fixes a deadline for the Government to place the matter before the Advisory Board, not a deadline for the detenu to submit a representation.

Relying on Prem Lata Sharma, the Court held that the right to make a representation subsists throughout the operation of the detention order.

The State’s contention that the time limit was merely directory and caused no prejudice was rejected because the detenu, who had studied only up to Class II, could not reasonably be expected to understand that the stated deadline was non-mandatory; in any event, he had not made any representation at all, much less an effective one.

The Court also observed that the detaining authority had apparently misread Section 10 of the NSA in prescribing the deadline, indicating non-application of mind.

It held that failure to provide translations of the supporting documents and the imposition of a three-week time limit for representations violated the detenu’s rights under Article 22(5).

Accordingly, the preventive detention order dated 21 April 2026, the State Government’s approval orders dated 29 April and 1 May 2026, and the confirmation order dated 27 May 2026 were set aside.

The detenu was directed to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.

The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.