Case: Teputhe Angami Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. Guwahati High Court

JudgesJasti Chelameswar, C.J. and H.N. Sarma, J.
IssueNational Security Act, 1980 - Sections 3, 3(1)(2), 3(3), 7, 8 and 8(1); Arms Act - Section 25(1)(1A); Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971; Constitution of India - Article 22(5); National Security Regulations
Citation(2009) 6 GLR 537
Judgement DateJuly 18, 2009
CourtGuwahati High Court

Judgment:

H.N. Sarma, J.

1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order of detention passed by the 4th respondent dated 4.3.2009 which was approved and confirmed by the 3rd respondent respectively on 7.3.2009 and 22.4.2009 detaining the petitioner at Central Jail, Dimapur in exercise of powers as contemplated under the National Security Act, 1980.

2. We have heard Mr. D.K. Misra, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. T. Khro, Learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The pleaded case of the petitioner, inter, alia is that the petitioner was arrested on 1.3.2009 in connection with the Medziphima PS Case No. 014/09 registered under Section 25(1)(1A) of the Arms Act, R/W Section 7/8 of the National Security Regulation. While the petitioner was in judicial custody, on 4.3.2009 an order of detention under the provision of Section 3(1)(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, respondent No. 4. On 7.3.2009 the Special Secretary, Government of Nagaland, respondent No. 3 passed an order to the effect that the State Government was satisfied with the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner and in exercise of the power under Section 3(1)(2) of the Act, the respondent No. 3 ordered the detention of the petitioner for a period of one year inclusive of the period already ordered by the Deputy Commissioner. It is further pleaded that on 7.3.2009 the detenue was served with the alleged grounds of detention prepared by the respondent No. 3, i.e., particulars in support of the grounds of detention in the form of Schedule, copy of the order of approval of detention dated 6.3.2009, copy of the order of detention dated 4.3.2009 and some other documents as mentioned in paragraph 5 of this writ petition. It is also pleaded that the order of detention was passed casually and without any authority of law and an order under Section 3(1)(2) of the Act can be passed only by the central or State Government and not by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Police can pass the order of detention only when so authorized by the order of State Government under Section 3(3) of the Act. The further case of the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner while passing the detention order, did not communicate the grounds on which the order of detention was made in compliance of Section 8(1) of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT