Manipur High Court
Smt. Laishram Nilajit Shija vs The State Of Manipur on 12 March, 2026
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
KABORAMB Digitally signed by
AM KABORAMBAM
SANDEEP SINGH
SANDEEP Date: 2026.03.12
SINGH 20:47:33 +05'30'ca
REPORTABLE
Sl. No. 17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P. (Crl.) No. 1 of 2026
Smt. Laishram Nilajit Shija, aged about 39 years, W/o Shi
Jiten Sana R.K. @ Nanao, a resident of Pangei Lairam Mapal,
P.S. Pangei, District- Imphal East, Manipur, 795114.
......Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief
Secretary, Government of Manipur, Babupara, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, 795001.
2. The District Magistrate, Imphal West District, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Manipur, 795001.
3. The Union of India, through the Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs
Department of Internal Security, North Block, New
Delhi.
......Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For Petitioner :: Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, Advocate
For Respondents :: Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, Deputy
Government Advocate for respondent
Nos, 1 & 2
Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, Senior
Panel counsel for Central Government
(Sr. PCCG) for respondent No. 3
Date of Hearing :: 12.03.2026
Date of Judgment & Order :: 12.03.2026
Page 1 of 16
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL)
(M. Sundar, CJ)
[1] Captioned ‘Writ Petition’ (‘WP’ for the sake of brevity) has
been filed with a prayer for issue of a writ of habeas corpus.
[2] Writ petitioner’s spouse, one Shri Jiten Sana RK @ Nanao
was arrested on 19.08.2025, remanded to judicial custody and while he
remained incarcerated, ‘R-2’ (to be noted, ‘R-2’ is an abbreviation denoting
‘2nd respondent’ and similar abbreviations will been used in the instant
order with regard to other respondents also) who shall be referred to as
‘detaining authority’ made ‘an order dated 17.11.2025 bearing Reference
No. Crl/NSA/No. 10 of 2025’ (hereinafter ‘impugned preventive detention
order’ for the sake of brevity) under ‘the National Security Act, 1980 (65
of 1980)’ (hereinafter ‘NSA’ for the sake of brevity).
[3] Writ petitioner’s spouse was arrested on 19.08.2025 in
connection with FIR No. 286(08)2025 IPS on the file of Imphal Police
Station for alleged offences under the ‘Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 (37 of 1967)’ (hereinafter ‘UAPA’ for the sake of brevity and
convenience). When writ petitioner’s spouse (to be noted, ‘writ petitioner’s
spouse’ shall hereinafter and henceforth be referred to as ‘detenu’ for the
sake of convenience and clarity) remained incarcerated, the impugned
preventive detention order was made by R-2 under NSA.
Page 2 of 16
[4] In the hearing today, Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel on
record for writ petitioner, Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, learned State counsel for
R-1, R-2 and Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned Senior Panel Counsel for
Central Government (Sr. PCCG) for R-3 are before this Court.
[5] Captioned main WP was taken up and heard out with the
consent of all the afore-referred counsel.
[6] In the hearing today, notwithstanding myriad grounds in the
captioned WP, learned counsel for writ petitioner predicated his campaign
against impugned preventive detention order on one point. This one point
is, detenu sent a representation dated 26.11.2025 to R-2 (detaining
authority) and made a specific request to make photocopies of the same
and forward the same to the State Government as well as the Central
Government but the detaining authority has admittedly not done this. This
according to learned counsel for writ petitioner has caused infraction of
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as the detenu’s right to make a
‘representation’ which has been repeatedly explained in terms of
Constitutional philosophy by Hon’ble Supreme Court as ‘effective
representation’ has been infringed.
[7] Elaborating on the aforementioned ground, learned counsel
for writ petitioner submitted that this plea has been specifically raised in
the captioned WP vide ‘Paragraph 8’ and ‘Ground (f)’ which read as
follows:
Paragraph 8
Page 3 of 16
‘8. That, on 26-11-2025, the detenu submitted a representation
addressed to the Respondent No. 2 thereby requesting him to revoke
the impugned detention order (Annexure-N/2) issued against him on
the grounds stated therein. In the said representation, the detenu
specifically and categorically requested the Respondent No. 2 to
obtain the photocopies of the said representation and to forward a
copy each to the Respondent No. 1 and 3.’GROUND (f)
‘f) For that, the Respondent No. 2 failed to forward the
representation (Annexure-N/4) to the Respondent No. 1 and 3
as requested by the detenu in the said representation.’[8] It was pointed out that affidavit-in-opposition of R-2 meets
this point in ‘Paragraph 12’ and ‘Sub-paragraph (f) of Paragraph 21’ which
read as follows:
Paragraph 12
’12. That, with reference to para No. 8 of the Writ Petition, the
answering deponent humbly submits that in paragraph No. 5 of the
Grounds of Detention, it has been clearly and specifically mentioned
as follows:
“And whereas, you are hereby informed that you have the
right to make representation to the Government of Manipur
as well as to the Central Government against the order of
detention passed against you and you are hereby afforded
the earliest opportunity for making such representation if
you wish to do so. The representation is to be sent through
the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa to “The
Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur” in respect of
representation to the Government of Manipur and to “The
Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home AffairsPage 4 of 16
(Department of Internal Security)” in respect of
representation to the Central Government.”
In view of the above clear intimation, the detenu was fully
appraised of his constitutional right under Article 22(5) of
the Constitution of India and the statutory safeguards
under Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 to
submit representations to both the State Government and
the Central Government. It is respectfully submitted that
the procedure for submission and transmission of
representation was expressly communicated to the detenu.
Therefore, if the detenu desired that copies of his
representation be forwarded to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur and to the Secretary, Government
of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Internal
Security), it was incumbent upon him to address and
submit the same in the manner already specified in the
Grounds of Detention, i.e., through the Superintendent of
Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. It is further submitted that the
answering respondent has complied with all constitutional
and statutory requirements by clearly informing the detenu
of his rights and the prescribed mode of submitting
representations. There is no statutory obligation cast upon
the District Magistrate to obtain photocopies of the
representation on behalf of the detenu for onward
transmission when a specific procedure had already been
laid down and communicated to him.
Sub-paragraph (f) of Paragraph
’21(f) The answering deponent humbly submits that there is no
statutory obligation cast upon the District Magistrate for onward
transmission when a specific procedure had already been laid down
and communicated to him. Moreover, the concerned authority had
forwarded the representation to the Commissioner (Home), Govt. of
Manipur on 09-12-2025 and to the Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Govt. of India on 15-12-2025 respectively.’Page 5 of 16
[9] In response to the afore-referred ground on which learnedcounsel for writ petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned
preventive detention order, Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, learned State counsel
adverting to the affidavit-in-opposition of R-2 drew our attention to the
afore-referred Paragraph 12 as well as sub-paragraph (f) of Paragraph 21
and submitted that R-2 is under no statutory obligation to transmit
detenu’s representation to State and Central Governments. To be noted,
post 26.11.2025 representation to the detaining authority, the detenu had
made another representation dated 08.12.2025 addressed to Hon’ble
Chairman of the Advisory Board and this ‘08.12.2025 representation’ which
shall be referred to as ‘2nd representation’ for convenience was sent by the
Inspector General of Prisons to the State Government as well as to the
Central Government under cover of letter dated 09.12.2025 and
15.12.2025 respectively.
[10] This Court, for the sake of completion of facts, deems it
appropriate to capture the obtaining factual position that afore-referred
26.11.2025 representation of detenu which shall henceforth be referred to
as ‘1st representation’ for the sake of clarity and specificity (which was
admittedly not forwarded by the detaining authority to the State and
Central Governments) was rejected by the detaining authority in and by
an order dated 01.12.2025 bearing Reference No. Cril/NSA/No.10 of 2025.
As regards the 2nd representation of the detenu, namely representation
dated 08.12.2025 which was addressed to the Hon’ble Chairman of the
Page 6 of 16
Advisory Board and forwarded to the State and Central Governments by
the Inspector General of Prisons in the aforesaid manner came to be
rejected by the State Government on 15.12.2025 vide order bearing
Reference no. No. H-1401/23/2025-HD-HD and it came to be rejected by
the Central Government vide order dated 24.12.2025 bearing Reference
No. II/15023/36/2025-NSA.
[11] This Court, having captured necessary facts which are
imperative for appreciating instant order, now embarks upon the legal drill
of considering the point raised by learned counsel for writ petitioner and
submission to the contrary made by learned State counsel for R-1 and R-
2. To be noted, as regards R-3, Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned Sr.
PCCG submitted that the role of R-3 is limited to considering and disposing
of the representation which has been done and details of disposal
(rejection) have been captured supra in the preceding paragraph.
[12] Reverting to the legal drill at hand, learned counsel for writ
petitioner pressed into service a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court being
Amir Shad Khan Vs. L. Hmingliana and others with Aziz Ahmed
Khan alias Aziz Mohd. Khan Vs. L. Hmingliana and others reported
in (1991) 4 SCC 39 for the proposition that when a person placed under
detention makes a request that his representation be forwarded to the
Central and State Governments, if the detaining authority refuses to do so
it is an infraction of Article 22(5) which vitiates a preventive detention
order. Amir Shad Khan is a case of preventive detention under the
Page 7 of 16
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities
Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) and a case of seizure of gold bars. In Amir Shad
Khan, Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that the detaining authority as well
as the State Government had refused to send the detenu’s representation
to Central Government and this has robbed the detenu of constitutional
right under Article 22(5) as detenu lost a valuable right of having his
representation considered by the Central Government. Relevant paragraph
in Amir Shad Khan is paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows:
’10. It must be realised that when a person is placed under
detention he has certain handicaps and if he makes a request
that a representation prepared by him may be forwarded to the
Central Government as well as the State Government for
consideration after taking out copies thereof it would be a denial
of his right to represent to the Central Government if the
Detaining Authority as well as the State Government refuse to
accede to his request and omit to forward his representation to
the Central Government for consideration. It is difficult to
understand why such a technical and rigid view should be taken
by the concerned authorities in matters of personal liberty where
a person is kept in preventive detention without trial. Detenus
may be literate or illiterate, they may have access to legal advice
or otherwise, they may or may not be in a position to prepare
more than one copy of the representation and if they make a
request to the authorities which have the facilities to take out
copies to do so and forward them for consideration to the Central
Government, would it be just and fair to refuse to do so? In such
circumstances refusal to accede to their request would be wholly
unreasonable and in total disregard of the right conferred on the
detenu by Article 22(5) of the Constitution read with Section 11
of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the DetainingPage 8 of 16
Authority as well as the State Government were not justified in
taking a hypertechnical stand that they were under no obligation
to take out copies of the representations and forward them to
the Central Government. We think that this approach on the part
of the Detaining Authority and the State Government has robbed
the appellants of their constitutional right under Article 22(5)
read with Section 11 of the Act to have their representation
considered by the Central Government. The request of the
detenus was not unreasonable. On the contrary the action of the
Detaining Authority and the State Government was unreasonable
and resulted in a denial of the appellants’ constitutional right.
The impugned detention orders are, therefore, liable to be
quashed.’
[13] In the case at hand, the matter does not rest on Amir ShadKhan principle alone. The reason is, if the detaining authority had
forwarded the detenu’s 1st representation dated 26.11.2205 to the State
and Central Governments as requested, i.e., as requested by the detenu
in the representation itself, which is before us, the State Government
would have, in discharge of its statutory obligation under Section 10 of
NSA would have placed the 1st representation before the Hon’ble Advisory
Board which sat on 08.12.2025. This Court had the benefit of perusing
the file produced by the learned State counsel and this Court finds that
the Hon’ble Advisory Board has proceed on the basis that the detenu has
not made any representation. This means that the detenu has lost his
valuable constitutional right of having his 1st representation dated
26.11.2025 considered by the Hon’ble Advisory Board. This is a clear
infraction of sacrosanct constitutional right enshrined in Article 22(5) read
with sanctified statutory right codified vide Section 10 of NSA.
Page 9 of 16
[14] There is another very important aspect of the matter. In the
grounds of detention dated 20.11.2025, in the penultimate paragraph, the
detaining authority has made it clear that a representation from the detenu
will be placed before the Hon’ble Advisory Board constituted under Section
9 of NSA. To be noted, this is vide Paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention
dated 20.11.2025 which reads as follows.
‘6. Further, you are informed that you have the right to make
representation to the detaining authority within 12(twelve) days,
from the date of detention or till the order is approved by the
State Government, whichever is earlier. The representation is to
be sent to the District Magistrate, Imphal West. Representation
if any, would be placed before the Advisory Board (Constituted
per Section 9, NSA) within a period of 3(three weeks from the
date of your detention and such other documents/papers in
connection with your detention, as the Government is bound
under the law to produce before the Board for its consideration.’
Therefore, it is clear as daylight that the detenu was lulled
into the belief that his representation being 1st representation dated
26.11.2025 (sent by him to the detaining authority) would be placed
before the Hon’ble Advisory Board but that did not happen. This is dehors
the request of detenu to detaining authority to forward copies of his 1st
representation to the State and Central Governments. In the case at hand,
this Court finds that literacy level of the detenu is Class -12 (Higher
Secondary School)
[15] Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that, given the
average and mediocre literacy level of the detenu, he was also lulled into
Page 10 of 16
the belief that he cannot send any representation to the State Government
or the Central Government beyond 3 (three) weeks from the date of his
detention. This is owing to Paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention which
reads as follows:
‘5. And whereas, you are hereby informed that you have the
right to make representation to the Government of Manipur as well
as to the Central Government against the order of detention
passed against you and you are hereby afforded the earliest
opportunity for making such representation if you wish to do so.
sThe representation is to be sent through Superintendent of
Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa to “The Chief Secretary, Government
of Manipur” in respect of representation to the Government of
Manipur and to “The Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Internal Security) North
Block, New Delhi-110001” In respect of representation to the
Central Government and should be submitted within 3(three)
weeks from the date of detention.’
[16] As would be evident from paragraphs 5 and 6 of grounds ofdetention (extracted and reproduced supra), the detaining authority has
fixed time frames for sending representations to the detaining authority,
State Government as well as the Central Government. This is the reason
why the detenu has sent the 2nd representation i.e., representation dated
08.12.2025 to the Hon’ble Advisory Board. Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Premlata Sharma (Smt.) vs. District Magistrate, Mathura & Ors.’
reported in (1998) 4 SCC 260 held that there can be no period of
limitation regarding exercise of the right of a detenu to make a
representation and corresponding obligation of the Central Government to
consider the same for deciding upon the question of order of detention as
Page 11 of 16
such a right of a detenu and corresponding/axiomatic obligation of Statesubsists so long as the preventive detention order continues to operate.
This Court, respectfully following Premlata principle laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in order dated 11.02.2026 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 34 of 2025
(Mutum Ranjan Meitei @ Lamjingba vs District Magistrate,
Thoubal District & Ors.) reported in 2026 (2) MNLJ0 : 2026 Legal
Eagle 6 which is a case of preventive detention order couched in a
language akin to the impugned preventive detention order as regards
paragraph 5 & 6, held that fixing of timeframes for sending representations
is a clear infraction of sacrosanct Constitutional right enshrined in Article
22(5). This Court is informed that this 11.02.2026 order in W.P. (Crl.) No.
34 of 2025 has since been given effect to and the detenu has since been
enlarged. Most relevant portionss of Mutum Ranjan Meitei case are
contained in paragraph 10 & 11 and relevant portions reads as follows:
‘[10] … It has also been made clear that a detenu qua a
impugned preventive detention order is entitled to have his
representation considered as expeditiously/at the earliest. The
significant clincher is, neither the Constitution nor the long line
of authorities have either provided for or justified fixing of time
frames for making such representations. It comes to light that in
‘Premlata Sharma (Smt.) vs. District Magistrate, Mathura
& Ors.‘ reported in (1998) 4 SCC 260, Hon’ble Supreme Court
has made it clear that there can be no period of limitation
regarding exercise of right of the detenu to make a
representation and corresponding obligation of the Central
Government to consider the same for deciding upon the question
of order of detention as such a right of a detenu and obligation
of State subsist so long as the preventive detention orderPage 12 of 16
continues. To be noted, on facts, Premlata also arose under
NSA, a preventive detention order made under NSA was assailed
and the issue that fell for consideration is refusal to send detenu’s
representation to Central Government on the ground that the
power of the revocation of a detention order is vested only in the
State Government under Section 14 of NSA. It is in this context
that in Premlata, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the ratio
that the right of detenu to make a representation and
corresponding obligation of the Government to consider the
same expeditiously (at the earliest) subsist so long as the
preventive detention order operates/detention continues. In the
case on hand, therefore, fixing of twelve days time frame qua
representation to the detaining authority and fixing of three
weeks time frame for representations to the State and Central
Governments is clearly flawed and unacceptable. On an extreme
demurer, even if the argument of learned State counsel that the
time frames were fixed as impugned preventive detention order
will be valid only for twelve days unless approved by the State
Government and the State Government has a responsibility to
place the representation before the Advisory Board within three
weeks is accepted, the same does not come to the aid of learned
State counsel in his effort to defend the impugned preventive
detention order. The reasons are, as regards twelve days, though
there may be some semblance of justification, there is absolutely
no justification as regards fixing three weeks time frame for
representation to the State Government. The reason is, Section
10 of NSA captioned ‘Reference to Advisory Board’ makes it clear
that the appropriate Government shall within 3 weeks from the
date of detention of a person place before the Advisory Board,
the grounds on which order has been made and representation,
if any. Section 10 of NSA reads as follows :
’10. Reference to Advisory Board.–
Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, in every
case where a detention order has been made under thisPage 13 of 16
Act, the appropriate Government shall, within three weeks
from the date of detention of a person under the order,
place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under
section 9, the grounds on which the order has been made
and the representation, if any, made by the person
affected by the order, and in case where the order has
been made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (3) of
section 3, also the report by such officer under sub-section
(4) of that section.’(underlining and bold font made /used by this
Court for ease of reference).
[11] The above makes it clear that the statute i.e. Section 10 of
NSA is clear as daylight that a State Government is under
obligation to place the representation of the detenu before the
Advisory Board only if the detenu chooses to send a
representation. To put it differently, it is axiomatic that if the
detenu does not send a representation within three weeks from
the date of detention, State Government will be under no
obligation much less a statutory obligation to place it before the
Advisory Board and the State Government cannot be found fault
with in this regard. Therefore, the argument that three weeks
time frame for representation to State Government was fixed in
grounds of detention to ensure that the representation is placed
before the Advisory Board does not hold water. The buttressing
factor is, if State Government receives a representation after
three weeks from the date of detention, it has a sacrosanct duty
to consider the same for revocation under Section 14 of NSA. To
be noted, this is a indefeasible analogy that flaws from Premlata
principle i.e., principle that detenu’s right to make a
representation and obligation/duty of State to consider the same
at the earliest subsist as long as the preventive detention order
operates/detention continues. As regards the representation to
the Central Government this three weeks phenomenon does not
exist at all and therefore the argument is a non starter.’
Page 14 of 16
[17] In instant case, the detenu did not send representations to
State and Central Governments. This Court is acutely conscious of the
obtaining factual position that the detenu’s 2nd representation dated
08.12.2025 sent to Hon’ble Advisory Board was sent to the State and
Central Governments by Inspector General of Prisons and the State and
Central Governments rejected the same, the details of which have been
alluded to elsewhere supra in instant order. Therefore, for the sake of
specificity and clarity, this Court deems it appropriate to write that
infraction qua Article 22(5) and Section 10 of NSA is owing to the 1 st
representation dated 26.11.2025 not being placed before the Hon’ble
Advisory Board on 08.12.2025 and Hon’ble Advisory Board proceeding on
the basis that detenu has not made any representation. To be noted, the
2nd representation though of the same date was after the Hon’ble Advisory
Board proceeded on the basis that detenu has not given any
representation and as alluded to supra, this Court have the benefit of
perusing the State file which contains proceedings of the Hon’ble Advisory
Board.
[18] Apropos, this Court has no hesitation in writing that the
impugned preventive detention order dated 17.11.2025 bearing Reference
No. Crl/NSA/No.10 of 2025, approval Order of State dated 25.11.2025
bearing Reference No. H-1401/23/2025-HD-HD under Section 3(4) of NSA
as well as Confirmation order dated 15.12.2025 bearing Reference No. H-
1401/23/2025-HD-HD made by the State Government under Section 12(1)
Page 15 of 16
of NSA are vitiated owing to infraction of sacrosanct constitutional right
enshrined in Article 22(5) and sanctified statutory principle codified in
Section 10 of NSA.
[19] This Court is informed by learned counsel for writ petitioner
that detenu has since been granted default bail and he now remains
incarcerated solely because of the impugned preventive detention order.
[20] Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned WP is allowed. The
impugned preventive detention order dated 17.11.2025 bearing reference
No. Crl/NSA/No.10 of 2025, made by R-2 (District Magistrate, Imphal
West), approval of the State Government dated 25.11.2025 bearing
Reference No. H-1401/23/2025-HD-HD and confirmation order of the
State Government darted 15.12.2025 bearing Reference No. H-
1401/23/2025-HD-HD are all set aside and Shri Jiten Sana RK @ Nanao,
resident of Pangei Lairam Mapal, Imphal East District Manipur, aged about
41 years now lodged in Central Jail Sajiwa, Imphal East, is directed to be
set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. There shall be no
order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE FR/NFR Sushil/Sandeep P.S. I : Upload forthwith
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court
website inter alia as the same is QR coded.
Page 16 of 16