Manipur High Court quashes NSA detention of Yambem Lalit Singh, ruling that a three-week limit on representations violated constitutional rights.
Imphal, June 20: The Manipur High Court has set aside the preventive detention of Yambem Lalit Singh alias Tompok under the National Security Act (NSA), ruling that the detention order violated the constitutional rights of the detenu by imposing an unlawful time limit for submitting representations against the detention.
In a judgment delivered on June 9, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. Sundar and Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by Yambem Manichandra Singh, father of the detenu, and directed that Yambem Lalit Singh be released immediately if he is not required in any other case.
The case challenged a preventive detention order issued on March 8, 2026, by the District Magistrate of Imphal East under the NSA. The detention was subsequently approved by the Manipur government on March 16 and confirmed on April 8.
At the centre of the legal dispute was a clause in the grounds of detention that informed the detenu that any representation to the Government of Manipur or the Central Government should be submitted within three weeks from the date of detention. The petitioner argued that this restriction violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees a detenu the right to make an effective representation against a preventive detention order.
According to the petition, the detenu believed he could not submit a representation after the expiry of the three-week period and consequently did not approach either the State or Central Government. The petitioner contended that the wording used in the detention order effectively curtailed a constitutional safeguard available to the detenu.
During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner relied on recent Manipur High Court judgments, including Mutum Ranjan Meitei vs District Magistrate, Thoubal and Laishram Nilajit Shija vs State of Manipur, which had held that prescribing time limits for representations in preventive detention cases infringes Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The State government and the detaining authority argued that the three-week reference was linked to the requirement under Section 10 of the NSA for the State Government to place detention records before the Advisory Board within three weeks. They maintained that the intention was merely to inform the detenu that any representation submitted within that period could be forwarded to the Advisory Board for consideration.
However, the High Court rejected this explanation.
The Bench observed that Section 10 of the NSA prescribes a three-week time frame only for the State Government to place the grounds of detention and any representation received before the Advisory Board. The provision does not impose any deadline on the detenu for making a representation.
The court further noted that the right of a detenu to make a representation continues for as long as the preventive detention order remains in force. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Prem Lata Sharma vs District Magistrate, Mathura, the Bench reiterated that there can be no limitation period for exercising such a right.
The judgment emphasized that even if a representation is submitted after three weeks, the State Government still has a duty to consider it, including for possible revocation of the detention order under Section 14 of the NSA. The court held that fixing a three-week deadline for representations to either the State Government or the Central Government was legally unsustainable.
The Bench also observed that the wording used by the detaining authority could reasonably lead a detenu to believe that representations filed after the prescribed period would not be entertained. Such a consequence, the court said, amounted to an infringement of a constitutional right.
In its detailed reasoning, the court stated that the case represented a failure by the detaining authority to correctly apply the law. It held that the authority had misconstrued Section 10 of the NSA by treating the three-week period applicable to the State Government as though it also applied to the detenu.
The Bench distinguished a Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs Paul Manickam, cited by the State, holding that the facts of that case were entirely different and did not support the State's position. The court observed that Paul Manickam dealt with issues of misleading pleadings and representations addressed to inappropriate authorities, whereas the present case involved a direct challenge to restrictions imposed on a detenu's constitutional rights.
The judgment also recorded certain observations relating to the criminal case that formed the basis of the detention. The court noted that the detention order was founded on a single FIR registered at Lamlai Police Station on December 26, 2025, involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
While clarifying that the detention order was not being quashed on this ground, the court pointed out that 90 days had elapsed from the date of arrest and that, according to submissions made before it, the State had neither filed a chargesheet nor sought an extension of time under the UAPA provisions governing investigation and remand. The Bench remarked that this situation could potentially entitle the accused to seek default bail.
Ultimately, the court concluded that there had been a clear violation of the protections guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Holding that the detention order, its approval and its confirmation were legally unsustainable, the Bench quashed all three orders and directed the immediate release of Yambem Lalit Singh if he was not wanted in any other case.
The ruling adds to a series of recent Manipur High Court decisions scrutinising preventive detention orders under the NSA and reaffirming that constitutional safeguards available to detenus cannot be diluted through administrative instructions or restrictive interpretations of the law.
