Manipur High Court quashes NSA detention over unverified UAPA ban and three-week limit on representations

The petitioner challenged the preventive detention of her son under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA).

The detenu had been arrested in February 2026 in connection with criminal proceedings and was served with the detention order and grounds of detention on 6 April 2026.

The District Magistrate’s grounds described him as a member of Kangleipak Communist Party (Apunba) (KCP-Apunba), an association declared unlawful by a Central Government notification dated 13 November 2023, and stated that he had joined the association in July 2023.

The detenu made representations to the relevant authorities within three weeks, but the detention order prescribed that period as the time for submitting representations.

After the criminal court granted him default bail on 28 July 2026, he remained in custody solely under the preventive detention order.

The High Court allowed his application to raise additional grounds and considered the detention challenge on the completed pleadings and record.

1. Whether the detaining authority’s failure to verify whether the UAPA Tribunal had confirmed the notification declaring KCP-Apunba unlawful, together with the absence of material that the detenu remained a member after the notification, vitiated the detention order for non-application of mind.

2. Whether limiting the period for making representations to three weeks from detention infringed the detenu’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution protects a detenu’s right to make an effective representation, and that right continues while the preventive detention order remains in force; it is not exhausted by an initial representation or subject to a fixed time limit imposed by the detaining authority.

The Court relied on Premlata Sharma v. District Magistrate, Mathura, (1998) 4 SCC 260, and followed its decisions in Mutum Ranjan Meitei @ Lamjingba, Laishram Nilajit Shija and Yambem Manichandra Singh on the impermissibility of such a time cap.

Under Sections 3 and 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), a declaration that an association is unlawful is subject to Tribunal confirmation; the Tribunal must decide within six months, and its order is to be published in the Official Gazette.

Applying Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587, the Court held that subjective satisfaction in preventive detention is reviewable where, among other grounds, the authority has not applied its mind, applies a wrong legal test, or reaches satisfaction without rationally probative material.

The detaining authority relied on the 2023 notification declaring KCP-Apunba unlawful but did not verify whether the UAPA Tribunal had confirmed it, despite the notification being expressly subject to Section 4 and having been issued more than two years before the detention order.

The record contained no Tribunal confirmation order.

Further, the grounds stated that the detenu joined the association in July 2023, before the notification, and contained no material or assertion that he remained a member after the declaration.

The Court therefore found the authority’s satisfaction legally misconceived and unsupported by rationally probative material.

The Court also held that the three-week limit impermissibly curtailed the continuing right to make representations.

Although the detenu had made initial representations within that period, his additional grounds stated that he wanted to make a further representation but refrained because of the time cap; the Court considered that later developments, including the grant of default bail, could have been raised.

It directed that the detenu be released forthwith, unless required in another case, and made no order as to costs.