Gauhati High Court quashes detention of Victor Das under NSA

The Gauhati High Court has set aside the preventive detention of Victor Das under the National Security Act, holding that the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(5) were violated.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita quashed the detention order dated October 7, 2025, along with the grounds of detention and the State Government’s approval dated October 14, 2025. The Court directed that Das be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Das had been detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act by an order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, following incidents that occurred after the death of Assamese singer Zubeen Garg. Two criminal cases were registered against him at Azara Police Station and Fatasil Ambari Police Station, alleging that he mobilised crowds, instigated unrest, damaged public property and obstructed police personnel. Although he secured bail in one of the cases, he was subsequently placed under preventive detention.

Challenging the detention under Article 226 of the Constitution, Das argued that the order was illegal and suffered from serious procedural lapses.

The principal ground on which the detention was quashed was the failure of authorities to inform Das of his right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority itself. While he was informed of his right to represent before the State Government, the Central Government and the Advisory Board, there was no mention that he could also make a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, who had passed the detention order.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and the Full Bench decision in Konsam Brojen Singh v. State of Manipur, the Bench reiterated that under Article 22(5), a detenue has a constitutional right to make a representation not only to the appropriate Government but also to the authority that issued the detention order.

The Court held that non-communication of this right amounted to denial of a valuable constitutional safeguard, thereby vitiating the detention.

The Bench also found merit in the contention that there was unreasonable and unexplained delay in considering Das’s representations. He submitted his representations on October 22, 2025. The Commissioner of Police furnished para-wise comments on October 31, 2025. The State Government rejected the representation on November 7, 2025, and the Central Government rejected it on November 14, 2025.

The State cited intervening holidays to justify part of the delay. However, the Court held that there was no convincing explanation for the time taken.

Referring to Supreme Court judgments in Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India and Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Bench emphasised that representations in preventive detention cases must be considered with utmost expedition. Any unexplained delay, it observed, would render continued detention unconstitutional, as every day’s delay undermines the mandate of Article 22(5).

In view of its findings on these two grounds, the Court declined to examine other challenges raised by the petitioner, including allegations of non-furnishing of relevant materials, non-consideration of the possibility of bail, and failure to specify the period of detention.

Holding that the State had failed to comply with constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention, the Court quashed the detention order and directed that Victor Das be set at liberty immediately, subject to his custody status in other cases.

Das was represented by S. Borthakur, D. Medhi and Sauradeep Dey. The respondents were represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India K.K. Parasar, CGC, and the Government Advocate, Assam.