Page No.# 1/10 GAHC020004322026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/18/2026 MRS. LITPHE SUMNYAN W/O MR. MOASE @ PHUANAY HAKHUN, R/O TIRAP, ARUNACHAL PRADESH VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND 2:THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND HOME DEPARTMENT POLITICAL BRANCH KOHIMA NAGALAND 3:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PHEK NAGALAND. 4:THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DEPUTY SECRETARY INTERNAL SECURITY - II DIVISION MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS SECOND FLOOR HALL NO. 23 MAJOR DHYAN CHAND STADIUM INDIA GATE NEW DELHI - 110001 5:THE SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL CENTRAL JAIL CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAND Page No.# 2/10 Advocate for the Petitioner : , R ELIS LOTHA,VARUN BARDEWA Advocate for the Respondent : , ::BEFORE:: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date: 05.08.2026 (M.K. Kalita, J.) Heard Mr. Varun Bardewa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Longkumer, learned Government Advocate, representing the State respondents as well as Mr. Z. Ngullie, learned CGC, representing the Union of India. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, Mrs. Litphe Sumnyan, who is the wife of the detenue Mr. Moase @ Phuanay Hakhun, impugning the Detention Order No. DCP/CON-66/88-89/189, dated 19.11.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate, Phek, Nagaland, whereby the detenue, i.e., the husband of the present petitioner was ordered to be detained in Central Jail, Chumoukedima, Nagaland, under sub-section (1) & (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. 2.1. The petitioner has also impugned the Approval Order of detention of the detenue, passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland on 27.11.2025 as well as confirmation order, passed on 17.02.2026 by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. Page No.# 3/10 2.2. The petitioner has also impugned the Extention Order No. CON/NSA/17/2025/90 dated 15.05.2026, whereby the detention of the detenue was extended w.e.f. 19.05.2026 till 18.08.2026. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant writ petition, in brief, are that: - On the basis of a complaint received from the COB Commander of 13th Assam Rifles, regarding trafficking of huge quantity of arms and ammunition from Dimapur towards Suruhoto Camp, Zunheboto. Total five accused persons were apprehended including the husband of the present petitioner on 21.10.2025. The husband of the present petitioner, along with other four co-accused was found as occupants of Maruti Vehicle bearing Registration No. NL-07CA-4302, from where huge cache of arms and ammunition, cash, extortion slips and notes, uniforms and other items were recovered. 4. In connection with the aforesaid incident, Chozoba P.S. Case No. 004/2025, under Sections 308(2)/3(5) of the BNS, read with Section 25 (1A)/27(2) of the Arms Act, read with Section 7/8 of the National Security Act was registered. 5. After five (5) days of detention of the accused persons in judicial custody, the Superintendent of Police, Phek, sent letter dated 04.11.2025, proposing for detention of the husband of the petitioner under the provisions of National Security Act. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Phek, by detention order No. DCP/CON-66/88-89/189, dated 19.11.2025 passed the detention order, under Sections 3(1) & (2) of the NSA, 1980, against the husband of the petitioner and one another accused person of the aforementioned case, namely, Amnei Phom. Page No.# 4/10 6. The said detention order was approved by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland on 27.11.2025 initially for a period of three (3) months, till 18.02.2026. 7. Thereafter, based on the opinion of the Advisory Board dated 15.12.2025, the husband of the petitioner was detained for another period of three (3) months w.e.f. 19.02.2026 to 18.05.2026. 8. In the meanwhile, the detenue made a representation dated 09.03.2026 to the Special Secretary (Home) to the Government of Nagaland, seeking revocation of the detention order. However, the same was rejected and was communicated through wireless message dated 17.03.2026 by the Central Government to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. 9. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1, vide order dated 15.05.2026, further extended the detention of the detenue for another three (3) w.e.f. 19.05.2026 to 18.08.2026, under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the NSA, 1980. 10. Mr. Bardewa, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the detention order passed by the respondent no. 3 is illegal, inasmuch as, though at the time when the detention order was passed, the husband of the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with Chozoba P.S. Case No. 004/2025, the said fact was not reflected in the detention order. Neither anything has been mentioned in the detention order that there is a apprehension that the detenue is likely to be released on bail and further, if so released, there is every possibility of him being again indulging in disruptive activities, which would be detrimental to public order, peace and tranquility of the State. He submits that omission to mention the aforesaid facts vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the authority passing detention order under Page No.# 5/10 the provisions of NSA, 1980. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has cited the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Huidrom Konungjao Singh vs. State of Manipur & Ors., reported in 2012 (7) SCC 181. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though it is an admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner, i.e., the detenue Mr. Moase @ Phuanay Hakhun belongs to Nocte tribe of Arunachal Pradesh and understands only languages, namely, Nagamese, Nocte and Hindi, as apparent from the arrest memo prepared at the time of his arrest in connection with Chozoba P.S. Case No. 004/2025. However, the detention order, the approval order and all the relevant documents, by which he was communicated the grounds of arrest, were in English language, which he does not understand. The learned counsel submits that by not communicating the grounds of arrest, in writing, in the language understood by the detenue, the respondent authorities have violated the constitutional mandate as provided under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. As such, he submits that the detention order, its approval and subsequent extension orders are liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1981 (2) SCC 427. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in Chozoba P.S. Case No. 004/2025, the husband of the petitioner has already been granted default bail after 119 days of detention in that case, however, he has been behind the bars for the detention order passed against him, by the respondent authorities under the provisions of NSA, 1980. 13. On the other hand, Mr. M. Longkumer, learned Government Page No.# 6/10 Advocate, representing the State respondents has submitted that the husband of the present petitioner was found involved in trafficking huge cache of arms and ammunition which was detrimental to the interest of the State and as such, after following the procedural requirement as provided under the provisions of NSA, 1980, his preventive detention order was passed under Section 3 of the said Act. He submits that the grounds of detention mentioned in the order dated 19.11.2025, clearly specifies that if enlarged on bail, the detenue will be a threat to peace and security of the State of Nagaland. He further submits that though the grounds of detention of the detenue have been mentioned in English language, however, it has been explained to the detenue in Nagamese, i.e., the language which the detenue understands and to that effect, an acknowledgment has also been obtained from the detenue, wherein, he has acknowledged that contents of the detention order dated 19.11.2025 have been explained to him in Nagamese language. As such, he submits that there has been no violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, justifying any interference by this Court with the order of detention as well as approval thereof and the subsequent extension of detention under the provisions of NSA, 1980. 14. Mr. Z. Ngullie, learned CGC has adopted the submissions made by the learned Government Counsel. Further, he has submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner against the detention order has been expeditiously disposed of by the Central Government within the statutory period prescribed under National Security Act, 1980 and as such, there has been no violation of statutory provisions or constitutional provisions, justifying interference by this court with the detention of the detenue, i.e., the husband of the present petitioner. Page No.# 7/10 15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record including the writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the state respondents. We have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 16. While considering the question as to whether the subjective satisfaction based on materials available on record of the detaining authority passing the detention order under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 should be interfered with or not, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Huidrom Konungjao Singh (supra) has observed as follows: - “9. In view of the above, it can be held that there is no prohibition in law to pass the detention order in respect of a person who is? already in custody in respect of criminal case. However, if the detention order is challenged the detaining authority has to satisfy the Court the following facts: (1) The authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu was actually in custody. (2) There was reliable material before the said authority on the basis of which he could have reasons to believe that there was real possibility of his release on bail and further on being released he would probably indulge in activities which are prejudicial to public order. (3) In view of the above, the authority felt it necessary to prevent him from indulging in such Page No.# 8/10 activities and therefore, detention order was necessary. In case either of these facts does not exist the detention order would stand vitiated.” 17. In the instant case, if we peruse the detention order, there is no mention therein that the fact that the husband of the petitioner has already been detained in judicial custody in connection with Chozoba P.S. Case No. 004/2025. There is also no mention about the basis on which the detaining authority passing the detention order has come to a conclusion that there was a real possibility of releasing the detainue on bail and that on such release he would likely indulge in activities which are prejudicial to public order. 18. It also appears that the arresting authorities were aware of the fact that the petitioner belongs to Nocte tribe of Arunachal Pradesh and understands only three languages, namely, Nagamese, Nocte and Hindi. Under such circumstances, the question before us is as to whether there was a necessity of communicating the grounds of arrest to him at the time of his arrest, in writing, in the language which he understands, or is it sufficient compliance if the arresting authority state that the grounds of arrest were made known to him in the language understood by him and thereafter, obtaining an acknowledgment in that regard from the detainee. In this regard, the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel (supra) are relevant and the same are quoted herein below: - “Contention (3): It is an admitted position that the detenu does not know English. The grounds of detention, which were served on the detenu, have been drawn up in English. It is true Page No.# 9/10 that Shri C. L. Antali, Police Inspector, who served the grounds of detention on the detenu, has filed an affidavit stating that he had fully explained the grounds of detention in Gujarati to the detenu. But, that is not a sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which requires that the grounds of detention must be "communicated" to the detenu. "Communicate" is a strong word. It means that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the 'grounds' should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands. The whole purpose of communicating the 'ground' to the detenu is to enable him to make a purposeful and effective representation. If the 'grounds' are only verbally explained to the detenu and nothing in writing is left with him, in a language which he understands, then that purpose is not served, and the constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) is infringed. If any authority is needed on this point, which is so obvious from Article 22(5), reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in Harikishan v. State of Maharashtra: and Haribandhu Dass. v. District Magistrate (ibid).” 19. In view of the above observations by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it appears that it is not a sufficient compliance of the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, if the detaining authority explained the grounds of arrest orally in the language which is understood by the detainee. What is required is to communicate the grounds of arrest, in writing, in a language which he understands. As such, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest, in writing, in either Nagamese, Nocte, or Hindi was necessary for complying with the mandate of Page No.# 10/10 Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 20. In view of the above discussions, the order of detention which has been challenged in this writ petition suffers from infirmity and as such, the same gets vitiated. 21. In view of the above discussions, the initial detention order and subsequent extension orders passed by the respondent authorities are hereby set aside and the husband of the petitioner, namely, Mr. Moase @ Phuanay Hakhun, be released immediately from detention if not required in connection with any other case. 22. The instant writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant