Page No.# 1/13 GAHC020003212026 2026:GAU-NL:372-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/11/2026 SMTI. AKATOLI CHOPHI W/O VICCA CHOPHY, PRESENT ADDRESS - NAGA UNITED VILLAGE, CHUMOUKEDIMA, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY INTERNAL SECURITY - II DIVISION THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS FIRST FLOOR ROOM NO. 8 HERITAGE BUILDING MAJOR DHYANCHAND STADIUM INDIA GATE NEW DELHI - 110001 3:THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND HOME DEPARTMENT POLITICAL BRANCH NORTH BLOCK FIRST FLOOR NAGALAND CIVIL SECRETARIAT NAGALAND KOHIMA. 4:THE SECRETARY NSA ADVISORY BOARD MEININ GLUNGL IU GONMEI Digitally signed by MEININGLUN GLIU GONMEI Date: 2026.06.23 13:40:36 +05'30' Page No.# 2/13 NAGALAND KOHIMA C/O C.O. SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT - POLITICAL BRANCH NORTH BLOCK FIRST FLOOR NAGALAND CIVIL SECRETARIAT NAGALAND KOHIMA 5:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DIMAPUR NAGALAND 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL CENTRAL JAIL DIMAPUR NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : A. SOPHIE, M SOLO,PHENIANG LUSHING,MEDOKERHE Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, Advocates: For the Petitioner: A. Sophie For the Respondents: Mosemsa Longkumer, G.A. (R/1, 3, 5 & 6) : Z.N. Ngullie, CGC (R/2) Date on which Judgment was reserved : ... Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 17.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : -- operative part of the Judgment? Whether the full Judgment has been : Yes pronounced? Page No.# 3/13 BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS :JUDGMENT & O R D E R (O R A L): (Pranjal Das, J) Heard Mr. A. Sophie, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mosemsa Longkumer, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, learned CGC for the respondent no. 2. 2. The petitioner, Akatoli Chophy, stated to be the wife of the detenue, Vicca Chophy, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to assail the preventive detention of the detenue, vide detention order dated 08.04.2026, passed by the Commissioner of Police cum District Magistrate, Dimapur, Nagaland vide order number CP/DMR/CB-19/2026-27/100. 3. The facts contended by the petitioner are that on 19.01.2026, a verbal complaint was received from the members of the Nagaland Arecanut Traders and Transport, regarding abduction of one of their members named Kiyeto Zhimomi. The verbal information was made into Dimapur P.S. GDE No. 07/2026. 4. The allegation was that on the night of 19.01.2026, the detenue, Vicca Chophy @Avika, self-styled Joint Secretary, Finance of NSCN-K (Khango), visited their office and stated that the said Kiyeto Zhimomi has been summoned by the crime cell of the NSCN-K (Khango). Subsequently, on 20.01.2026, an FIR was lodged at the Diphupar Police Station, by the wife Page No.# 4/13 of the said victim against the detenue, alleging that her husband had been kidnapped by NSCN-K (Khango) members. 5. Thereupon, Dimapur P.S. Case No. 004/26 was registered under Section 140(2)(3)/351/308(2)/131/127(2)/3(5)/111/113, BNS r/w Sections 7/8 NSR Act r/w Sections 16/18 UAP Act, 1967. 6. Pursuant to registration of the FIR, the detenue was arrested on 30.03.2026.Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Dimapur vide letter dated 04.04.2026 proposed preventive detention of the detenue. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Police, Dimapur, vide the aforementioned order dated 08.04.2026, issued the impugned detention order against the petitioner's husband under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter, the NSA). 7. It is further stated that the detenue submitted a representation dated 14.04.2026 before the State Government as well as the Central Government. However, both these representations came to be rejected on 20.04.2026 by the State Government and on 28.04.2026 by the Central Government respectively. In the meantime, vide order dated 16.04.2026 bearing No. CON/NSA/16/2026/76, the Government of Nagaland through the Chief Secretary also approved the detention of the petitioner's husband. The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority did not have reasons to believe that there was a real possibility of the detenue being released on bail as he had been booked under provisions of the BNS as well as of the UAP Act. It is further contended by the petitioner that though he filed the representation on 14.04.2026 but till Page No.# 5/13 the filing of the writ petition, his representation was not disposed of. 8. It is stated that the order of detention dated 08.04.2026 ought to have been placed before the Advisory Board on or before 29.04.2026 but the same was done only on 02.05.2026 thereby, violating the provisions of Section 10 of the NSA. Further, the representation dated 14.04.2026 was rejected by the Central Government on 28.04.2026 involving a delay of 15 days. 9. The Commissioner of Police, Dimapur, who is the Detaining Authority, has been impleaded as respondent no. 5 in the writ petition and he has filed an affidavit-in-opposition narrating about the complaint received from the Nagaland Arecanut Traders and Transport about the kidnapping of one of their members. It is stated that subsequently, the victim was recovered with injuries. The investigation revealed the name of the petitioner's husband, whereupon he was arrested in the case and subsequently, considering that his preventive detention to be necessary for the security of the State of Nagaland and for public order, the impugned detention order was issued on 08.04.2026. 10. It was also stated that within the stipulated period of 3 (three) weeks provided under Section 10 of the NSA, the detention order was sent to the NSA Advisory Board vide letter dated 21.04.2026. The respondent nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 also filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein the facts giving rise to the registration of the police case has been mentioned and the subsequent emergence of the name of the petitioner's husband during the investigation, whereupon, he was arrested and Page No.# 6/13 considering his preventive detention necessary for the security of the state and for public order, the impugned detention order dated 08.04.2026 was issued. 11. It is made clear that the detaining authority had knowledge that he was in judicial custody at that time and had also moved for bail on 06.04.2026. After considering all the facts and applying its mind, the detention order was issued. In this affidavit also it was stated that vide letter dated 21.04.2026, the detention order dated 08.04.2026, along with documents were referred to the NSA Advisory Board within the stipulated period of 3 (three) weeks and required under Section 10 of the NSA. 12. Mr. Sophie, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the detention order is not indicative of the possibility of the detenue being released on bail in the criminal case in which he was arrested. It is submitted that as the detenue was booked in that case under UAPA, including Sections 16 and 18 thereof, his possibility of bail was very difficult in any case. In this context, it is submitted that there was inadequate subjective satisfaction for subjecting the detenue to preventive detention. 13. It is also submitted that the detention order ought to have been placed before the Advisory Board on or before 29.04.2026. But the said Board was constituted only on 02.05.2026. It is submitted that the detention order was passed mechanically and there was no subjective satisfaction. In support of these contentions and submissions, the learned counsel Page No.# 7/13 for the petitioner relies on the following decisions: - (i) Ahanthem Mema v. District Magistrate, Imphal East & Ors., MANU/GH/0650/2003 and (ii) Nancy v. State of Nagaland & Ors., MANU/GH/1013/2023 14. The learned Counsel representing respondent no. 2, the Detaining Authority submits that preventive detention of the detenue was necessary in the interest of public order and security of the State of Nagaland and that it was done so and all the procedural requirements were duly complied. The Learned Government Advocate representing the respondent nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 submits that the representation of the detenue was placed before the respective authorities on time, including before the Advisory Board. The respondent no. 2 also filed an affidavit-in-opposition through the Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that the representation was processed within the time limits and upon not finding merits, it was rejected on 28.04.2026. 15. We have perused the pleadings, the annexed documents and considered the rival submissions. The original record has been placed before us and we have perused the same. We have also considered the decisions cited at the Bar. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority failed to give any reasons to submit that there was a real reason for the detenue to be released on bail as he has been booked Page No.# 8/13 under the provisions of the BNS as well as the UAP Act. The detenue was apprehended on 30.03.2026 and initially arrested at Diphupar Police Station. The detenue then filed Bail Application before the District & Sessions Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland vide I.A.(Criminal) Bail Application No. 136 of 2026 seeking his release. From the records it is seen that the Bail Application was listed on 06.04.2026 and was directed to be listed on 09.04.2026 for hearing. Before the Bail Application could be taken up for hearing, the detenue came to be detained under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the NSA vide order dated 08.04.2026. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was next to impossible for the detenue to be released on bail and therefore, the Detaining Authority, without considering this aspect of the matter had passed the order of detention. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is next to impossible for the detenue to be released on bail having regard to the nature of allegation and the sections under which he has been booked can be appreciated from the manner in which the order of detention has been passed by the Detaining Authority under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the NSA. The proposal for preventive detention under the NSA submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Chumoukedima to the Commissioner of Police on 04.04.2026, apart from stating that the detention of the detenue is necessary to prevent hampering or interfering with the ongoing investigation and to ensure effective apprehension of the absconding accused, does not state that the detenue is likely to be released on bail having regard to the Bail Application submitted by him. The order of detention dated 08.04.2026 therefore only appears to have been passed without considering this aspect of the matter. Page No.# 9/13 17. The next contention of the detenue is that although the detenue filed his representation before the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department, which was received on 14.04.2026, but the same has not been considered and disposed oftill date and, therefore, the detention of the detenue on this ground is also bad in law and he should be released. In response to this averment, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the release of the detenue or otherwise has been duly considered by the Government and it is only after such consideration that the approval of detention was given by the Government and the detention of the detenue was directed for an initial period of 3 (three) months w.e.f. 07.07.2026 and review of the detention would be made thereafter. The said approval and order was issued on 16.04.2026. He, therefore, submits that non-disposal of the representation by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department, would not vitiate the detention of the detenue. In this connection, it may be seen that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ahanthem Mema (supra), in the given facts of that case, held that non-consideration of the representation by the Detaining Authority is hit by the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 22(5) and, therefore, makes the detention of the detenue illegal. Further, even an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering and rejecting the representation of the detenue by the State Government also vitiates the order of detention. Furthermore, non-consideration of the representation addressed to the Advisory Board by the Government routed through the Government authorities is contrary to the constitutional mandate. 18. In coming to the above conclusion, reliance was placed on the Apex Page No.# 10/13 Court decision rendered in Kamleshwar Ishwar Das Patel v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1995) 4 SCC 51. The Apex Court in that case held that Article 22(5) of the Constitution is to be construed to mean that the person detained has a right to make a representation against the order of detention which can be not only to the Advisory Board but also to the Detaining Authority, i.e., the authority that has made the order of detention or the order for continuance of such detention, which is competent to give immediate relief by revoking the said order as well as to any other authority which is competent under law to revoke the order for detention and thereby given relief to the person detained. The right to make a representation carries within it a corresponding obligation on the authority making the order of detention to inform the person detained of his right to make a representation against the order of detention to the authorities who are required to consider such a representation. In the present case, no materials have been placed before us to show that the representation of the petitioner addressed to the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department, which was received on 14.04.2026, had received consideration. Having regard to the authority referred to and as expounded by the Apex Court, non-consideration and disposal of the representation submitted by the detenue would also result in the infringement of his Fundamental Rights and for which reason, his detention is rendered bad in law. 19. The further contention of the petitioner is that the detention of the detenue for the belated reference of his case to the Advisory Board and non-disposal of the same has also been duly considered. According to the petitioner, the Detention Order was passed on 08.04.2026 and the State Page No.# 11/13 Government ought to have made reference to the Advisory Board on or before 29.04.2026. However, the Detention Order along with the representation and the detenue were produced before the Advisory Board only on 02.05.2026 resulting in gross violation of Section 10 of the NSA which otherwise mandates that reference is to be made to the Advisory Board within 3 (three) weeks from the date of detention. Against such specific averment made in paragraph no. 10(c) of the writ petition, the respondent no. 5 in its affidavit-in-opposition has stated that the statements are false and misleading and that the Government referred the Detention Order dated 08.04.2026 along with all relevant documents to the NSA Advisory Board on 21.04.2026. A copy of the letter dated 21.04.2026 has also been annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit. Similar is the stand taken by the respondent nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 in their affidavit- in-opposition. However, what has transpired after the matter was referred to the Advisory Board on 21.04.2026 is not known. In other words, the recommendation, advice or opinion of the Advisory Board for or against the detention of the detenue is not available in the records. 20. Section 10 of the NSA provides that when the Detention Order has been made under the Act, the appropriate Government shall within 3 (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. 21. Section 11(1) of the same Act provides that the Advisory Board shall after considering the materials placed before it and, after calling for such Page No.# 12/13 further information as it may deem necessary from the appropriate Government or from any person called for the purpose through the appropriate Government, etc submit its report to the appropriate Government within 7 (seven) weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned. 22. The detenue was detained vide the Detention Order dated 08.04.2026.The Advisory Board as per Section 11(1) of the NSA is required to submit its report to the appropriate Government within 7 (seven) weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned. 7 (seven) weeks means 49 (forty-nine) days. Since the detenue was detained vide Detention Order dated 08.04.2026, 69 (sixty-nine) days has lapsed as on today. No material has been placed before us that the Advisory Board has submitted its report to the appropriate Government. Even if the date on which the respondents claim that the matter was referred to the Advisory Board is to be taken into account, i.e., 21.04.2026, 56 (fifty-six) days has now lapsed till date without any report from the Advisory Board. Therefore, having regard to Section 11(1) of the NSA when the Detention Order was passed on 08.04.2026 or even when the matter was referred to the Advisory Board on 21.04.2026, the mandatory period of 7 (seven) weeks for submission of report has clearly lapsed. 23. The decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, i.e., Nancy v. State of Nagaland & Ors. (supra) on this issue is also found to be applicable to the present case as well. In fact, in that case, this Court found that there was no Page No.# 13/13 material to show that the matter was placed before the Advisory Board except that a sitting was said to be have been held on a particular date. 24. Thus, upon an overall consideration of the case in its entirety, we find that the detention orders of the detenue cannot be sustained and they have to be set aside. 25. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned Detention Order dated 08.04.2026 (Annexure-D) and the Approval Order dated 16.04.2026 (Annexure-F). The detenue is thus directed to be released, if not otherwise wanted in connection with any other case. The records produced by the learned Govt. Advocate be returned. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant