Orissa HC Rejects Father’s Plea To Free Son From NSA Detention, Finds Grounds, Documents And A Hearing Were Provided

The petitioner, the detenu’s father, challenged the District Magistrate, Puri’s order dated 8 December 2025 detaining his 24-year-old son under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA).

The State stated that the detention grounds and supporting documents were served on the detenu on 12 December 2025; the State approved the order on 19 December 2025; and the detenu was given an opportunity to make a representation and appear before the NSA Advisory Board.

The petitioner alleged, among other things, that the detenu had not received an effective opportunity to represent against the detention and that the detention was based mechanically on pending criminal cases.

The State opposed the petition, asserting compliance with the statutory and constitutional procedures.

Section 3(2) of the NSA authorises preventive detention where the statutory requirements are met; Article 21 protects personal liberty, while Article 22(5) requires that the grounds of detention be communicated and that the detenu be afforded the earliest opportunity to make a representation.

The Court noted that Article 22(3)(b) creates an exception to Article 22(1)’s protections concerning legal representation in preventive-detention cases.

Relying on Rekha v. State of T.N., the Court stated that preventive detention is not barred merely because criminal proceedings are pending, but may be resorted to where ordinary criminal law will not be able to deal with the situation.

Under Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, relied-upon material must be supplied without undue delay to enable an effective representation.

Sunil Kumar Gupta alias Sunil Chain v. Union of India was cited for the rule that the Government must consider a detenu’s representation at the earliest point of time, and failure to do so may vitiate the detention and its approval.

The Court found that the detention grounds, spanning 25 pages, and supporting documents were served on the detenu on 12 December 2025 with notice of his right to make a representation.

It also found that the detenu sought a personal hearing before the Advisory Board, was informed of the hearing date, appeared, and was heard.

The Court further noted that the father’s representation was considered, although he had no right under the NSA to make one.

On those facts, it concluded that the detenu had received the grounds and an opportunity to make a representation and defend himself; it found no procedural departure warranting habeas corpus relief.

It dismissed the writ petition without an order as to costs.