Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1525 (GAU)

Fatema Khatun v. State of Assam

2025-09-05

KALYAN RAI SURANA, MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2025
JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. The writ petitioner is the wife of one Md. Ramijul Hoque [hereinafter referred to as ‘the detenu’ for short]. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu, who is presently in the Central Jail at Nagaon. A Detention Order bearing no. eCF-588123/149 dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home & Political Department as the Detaining Authority has been put to challenge. The Detaining Authority has passed the impugned Detention Order in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section [1] of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [‘the PIT-NDPS Act’, for short] whereby and whereupon the detenu has been detained and kept under preventive detention. 2. In the impugned Detention Order dated 18.02.2025, it is stated that the detenu has been detained until further order. Subsequent to issuance of the Detention Order dated 18.02.2025, the detenu was taken into custody on 26.02.2025. The detenu was served with the Detention Order dated 18.02.2025 along with the Grounds of Detention which were prepared vide no. eCF-588123/144 dated 18.02.2025, on 26.02.2025. 3. On being so served with the Detention Order and the Grounds of Detention, both dated 18.02.2025, along with the supporting materials, on 26.02.2025, the detenu preferred a Representation each, on 13.03.2025, through the Superintendent of Central Jail, Nagaon before: [i] the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home & Political Department; [ii] the Detaining Authority under the PIT-NDPS Act & the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home & Political Department; [iii] the Advisory Board, PIT-NDPS Act; and [iv] the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. 4. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board on 26.03.2025. During one of the sittings of the Advisory Board, the detenu was produced before the Advisory Board by the Detaining Authority from the Central Jail, Nagaon and the Advisory Board heard the detenu in person. The Advisory Board submitted its Report vide Order no. PITNDPS/1/2025 on 08.05.2025 opining that there were sufficient grounds for detention of the detenu under Section 3 [1] of the PIT-NDPS Act. In the Order dated 08.05.2025, the Advisory Board also mentioned about rejection of the Representation dated 13.03.2025 submitted by the detenu before it. 5. The Advisory Board submitted its Report vide Order no. PITNDPS/1/2025 on 08.05.2025 opining that there were sufficient grounds for detention of the detenu under Section 3 [1] of the PIT-NDPS Act. In the Order dated 08.05.2025, the Advisory Board also mentioned about rejection of the Representation dated 13.03.2025 submitted by the detenu before it. 5. Close on the heels of receipt of the Report dated 08.05.2025 from the Advisory Board, the Detention Order dated 18.02.2025 had been confirmed on the basis of the Report of the Advisory Board for a period of one year from the date of detention, vide an Order no. eCF-588123/213 dated 11.05.2025 in exercise of the power conferred by Section 9 [a] of the PIT-NDPS Act. 6. The Representation submitted before the State Government by the detenu was considered and disposed of by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home & Political Department vide an Order no. eCF no. 588123/214 dated 06.06.2025. The Additional Chief Secretary while considering the Representation, took into consideration the opinion given by the Advisory Board in its Report. It also took notice of the fact that on the basis of the Report received from the Advisory Board the Detention Order had been confirmed for a period of one year vide an Order dated 11.05.2025. In the above circumstances, it was opined that there were no justified and valid grounds to revoke the Detention Order dated 18.02.2025 as sought for in the Representation submitted by the detenu. Observing so, the Representation was rejected by the Government of Assam. 7. We have heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D.K. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1-8 and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] with Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9. 8. By Orders, dated 18.06.2025 & dated 26.06.2025, the learned State Counsel was requested to obtain and place the relevant records of the detention proceeding. The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam has placed the relevant records of the detention proceeding during the course of the hearing. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was a huge gap between the last alleged illegal activity of the detenu relating to contraband substance and the date of passing the Detention Order. The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam has placed the relevant records of the detention proceeding during the course of the hearing. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was a huge gap between the last alleged illegal activity of the detenu relating to contraband substance and the date of passing the Detention Order. He has pointed out that in all the four cases, which have been referred to in the Detention Order by the Detaining Authority, the detenu was released on bail pursuant to orders of the Court and there is no material to indicate that he has subsequently violated any of the conditions imposed at the time of granting bail. As on date, no application has been preferred by the State/prosecution in those cases for cancellation of any of the bail orders nor any appeal has been preferred. No proper reason was recorded by the Detaining Authority in the Detention Order for reaching satisfaction and the Detention Order was passed mechanically. He has further submitted that the Detention Order and the Grounds of Detention were prepared in English language. Furthermore, the documents supplied with the Grounds of Detention were also in English language with which the detenu was not conversant with. The detenu was only read over and explained the contents of the Detention Order in Assamese language with which he is conversant with. Due to non-supply of the translated copies of the aforesaid documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority, the detenu was prevented from preferring an effective representation and there was non-compliance of the mandate or Article 22[5] of the Constitution. The Detaining Authority did not consider and dispose of the Representation submitted by the detenu. The State Government decided to consider the Representation with inordinate delay after waiting for the Report of the Advisory Board. The Central Government did not intimate its decision on the Representation of the detenu. It is, thus, contended that the Detention Order is unsustainable in law and the order of preventive detention stands vitiated. 10. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has submitted that materials are aplenty as regards involvement of the detenu in activities of illegal trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The detenue was found active in such illegal activities in the previous years leading to the Detention Order dated 18.02.2025. 10. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has submitted that materials are aplenty as regards involvement of the detenu in activities of illegal trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The detenue was found active in such illegal activities in the previous years leading to the Detention Order dated 18.02.2025. He has referred to the materials, available on record, regarding the criminal proceedings pending against the detenu, more particularly, the four criminal proceedings referred to in the Detention Order by the Detaining Authority. He has contended that the Detaining Authority had rightly reached at the satisfaction, based on the materials placed before him, that if the detenu is allowed to be at large he would continue to be involved in the activities of illicit trafficking. Mr. Sarma has further submitted that all the materials on which the Detaining Authority relied upon were furnished to the detenu on 26.02.2025 along with the Detention Order and the Grounds of Detention. At the time of handing over, the contents of the Detention Order and the Grounds of Detention were read over and explained to the detenu under videography in Assamese language which is a language the detenu is conversant with and understands. Thus, there was due compliance of the mandate of Article 22[5] of the Constitution as the same were communicated to the detenu in a language understood by him. It is further submitted by him that all the procedures were duly adhered to and as such, there is no scope for interference with the Detention Order. 11. Mr. Parasar, learned Central Government Counsel has made his submissions in line with the submissions of the learned State Counsel. He has submitted that no instruction has been received by him as regards consideration and disposal of the Representation submitted by the detenu before the Central Government. 12. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the proceeding leading to the passing of the Detention Order dated 18.02.2025 and also subsequent thereto, apart from the provisions contained in the PIT-NDPS Act. 13. The power to make orders detaining certain persons under the PIT-NDPS Act has been provided for in Section 3 . Section 3 reads as under :- 3. 13. The power to make orders detaining certain persons under the PIT-NDPS Act has been provided for in Section 3 . Section 3 reads as under :- 3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons :- [1] The Central Government or a State Government, or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person [including a foreigner] that, with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. [2] When any order of detention is made by a State Government or by an officer empowered by a State Government, the State Government shall, within ten days, forward to the Central Government a report in respect of the order. [3] For the purposes of clause [5] of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. 14. Sub-Section [1] of Section 3 has empowered the Central Government or the State Government or any Officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of that section by the Government, or any Officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of that section by that Government, to make an order of detention, if satisfied, with respect to any person [including a foreigner] with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Sub-section [2] of Section 3 has provided that when any order of detention is made by a State Government or by an Officer empowered by a State Government, the State Government shall, within ten days, forward to the Central Government a report in respect of the order. Sub-section [3] of Section 3 has cast an obligation on the Detaining Authority making the detention order to communicate to the person detained in pursuance of the detention order the grounds on which the detention order has been made. The Detaining Authority is required to communicate the grounds as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. 15. It has been provided in Section 9 [b] of the PIT-NDPS Act that in every case where a detention order has been made under Section 3 [1] of the PIT-NDPS Act, the appropriate Government shall within five weeks from the date of detention, make a reference of the detention order to the Advisory Board. Thereafter, as per Section 9 [c], the Advisory Board shall, after considering the reference and the materials placed before it and after hearing the detenu in person, if he expresses desire to be heard in person, record its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned and such report is to be submitted by the Advisory Board within eleven weeks from the date of detention of the detenu. It has been provided in Section 9 [f] to the effect that in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the appropriate Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith. 16. 16. As per Article 22[4] of the Constitution of India, no law providing for preventive detention shall inter-alia authorize the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an Advisory Board has reported, before the expiration of the period of three months, that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention. Article 22[5] has laid down that when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. 17. The provisions for revocation of detention orders made under Section 3 [1] are provided in Section 12[1]. It has been laid down that without prejudice to the provisions of Section 21 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT , 1897, a detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified [a] notwithstanding that the order has been made by an Officer of a State Government, by that State Government or by the Central Government; and [b] notwithstanding that the order has been made by an Officer of the Central Government or by a State Government, by the Central Government. 18. Personal liberty of a person has been protected under Article 21 of the Constitution by providing that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Personal liberty is sacrosanct and high in the scale of constitutional values. It has been consistently held that the obligation of the Detaining Authority is not confined just to meet the specific grounds of challenge but is one of showing that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. As personal liberty is the highest form of one’s freedom, the laws of preventive detention are strictly construed and a meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however technical, is strictly insisted upon by the Courts [ Ayya @ Ayub vs. State of Utter Pradesh and another , (1989) 1 SCC 374 ]. 19. The PIT-NDPS Act is a piece of legislation providing for preventive detention upto a maximum period of one year [Section 11]. 20. 19. The PIT-NDPS Act is a piece of legislation providing for preventive detention upto a maximum period of one year [Section 11]. 20. In order to consider and appreciate the submissions of the parties from the standpoint of legality and validity of the Detention Order passed on 18.02.2025, it appears appropriate to refer to the Detention Order itself. For ready reference, the Detention Order dated 18.02.2025 is extracted in its entirety hereinunder:- GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM POLITICAL [A] DEPARTMENT: DISPUR 2 nd Floor, I Block, Assam Secretariat, Dispur, Guwahati-6 Tele Fax No. 0361-2261421::eMail: home.assam@gov.in No.eCF-588123/149 Dated Dispur, the 18 th February, 2025 ORDER Whereas, a Police report and connected records have been laid before the undersigned by the Inspector General of Police [CR], Nagaon, Assam, vide his letter No. CR/41-NGN/2024/3410, dated 07.10.2024 and Superintendent of Police, Nagaon vide his Letter Memo No. IV/NGN/PIT NDPS/2024/3635, dated 24.09.2024 and Letter No. IV/PIT NDPS/2024/4661, dated 11.12.2024. Whereas, it has been proposed to detain Md. Ramijul Hoque, S/o- Amiruddin, Vill. - Nangaldhua, P.S. - Rupahihat, Dist. - Nagaon, Assam with a view to preventing him from engaging in illegal and harmful activities of Illicit business of Narcotic drugs and from the repeated violations of the provisions under the NDPS Act, 1985; and Whereas, on perusal of Police report and the connected records, it appears that the said accused has persistently involved himself with the crime of illegal business of Narcotic drugs since many years and was arrested in the following cases : [1] Rupahihat P.S. Case No 821/21, U/S-22[b]/27 NDPS Act, 1985 [2] Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 212/23, U/S-353/224 IPC; R/W Sec. 21[b] NDPS Act, 1985 [3] Rupahihat P.S. Case No-218/23, U/S-353/224 IPC [4] Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 361/23, U/S-21[b]/25/29 NDPS Act, 1985 Whereas, it also appears from the Police report that during investigation, the seized particulars suspected to be psychotropic substances in respect of the Police cases mentioned at [1], [2] & [4] above were sent to FSL for examination and FSL report gave positive tests for Heroin. Whereas, as intimated by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon vide his Letter Memo no. IV/NGN/PIT NDPS/2024/3635, dated 24.09.2024 that the accused Md. Whereas, as intimated by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon vide his Letter Memo no. IV/NGN/PIT NDPS/2024/3635, dated 24.09.2024 that the accused Md. Ramijul Hoque has been found to be a repeated offender under various sections of NDPS Act 1985 and his detention under PITNDPS Act is imperative to keep him out of business of illicit trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and break the network of drugs supply in the district of Nagaon. Whereas, I, XXXXXXXXXX, Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home & Political Departments and Detaining Authority under PITNDPS Act, on perusal of the Police records and recommendation of the Inspector General of Police [CR], Nagaon and Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, Assam, satisfied that Md. Ramijul Hoque, S/o- Amiruddin, Vill - Nangaldhua, P.S. - Rupahihat, Dist. – Nagaon, Assam has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the provisions under the NDPS Act, 1985 by continuously indulging in illicit trade in narcotic drugs even after his arrest several times and therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 [1] of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [PITNDPS Act, 1988], do hereby issue this order directing that the above accused person, Md. Ramijul Hoque, S/o - Amiruddin, Vill - Nangaldhua, P.S. - Rupahihat, Dist. - Nagaon, Assam be detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [PITNDPS Act, 1988] until further order. Given under my hand and seal of the office on this 18th February, 2025. Secretary to the Government of Assam Home & Political Department 21. On perusal of the records of the detention proceeding, as placed before this Court, few aspects which have caught the attention of this Court require mention. 22. On perusal of the relevant records, it is noticed that a proposal for preventive detention of the proposed detenu was submitted by an Inspector, IBI, DSB, Nagaon before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon vide an Office Letter dated 24.09.2024 forwarded the proposal, through the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Nagaon, for issuing a Detention Order in respect of the detenu under the PIT-NDPS Act with utmost urgency. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon vide an Office Letter dated 24.09.2024 forwarded the proposal, through the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Nagaon, for issuing a Detention Order in respect of the detenu under the PIT-NDPS Act with utmost urgency. The Superintendent of Police, Nagaon reported that the detenu was found to be a repeated offender for various offences under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [‘the NDPS Act’, for short] and his detention under the PIT-NDPS Act was imperative to keep him out of the business of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and to break the network of drugs supply in Nagaon District and its neighbouring districts. The Detaining Authority was requested to issue the necessary Detention Order against the detenu, who was on bail. The proposal for detention and requisite documents were stated to be enclosures of the Office Letter dated 24.09.2024. Thereafter, the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Nagaon forwarded the proposal for preventive detention by an Office Letter dated 07.10.2024 to the Detaining Authority. 23. In ‘the Proposal’ appended to the Office Letter dated 24.09.2024, details of the cases which were already registered against the detenu, were mentioned :– [i] Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 821/2021 under Sections 22[b]/27, NDPS Act; [ii] Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 212/2023 under Sections 353/224, IPC r/w Section 21 [b], NDPS Act; [iii] Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 218/2023 under Sections 353/224, IPC; [iv] Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 361/2023 under Sections 21 [b]/25/29, NDPS Act. 24. As per the details provided, Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 821/2021 was registered for an incident occurred on 27.12.2021 which led to search, recovery and seizure of 49 nos. of plastic containers containing 9 gms of suspected brown sugar from the detenu and another co-accused. The First Information Report [FIR] was lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Rupahihat Police Station. 24.1. The informant in Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 212/2023 was a Sub-Inspector of Police. The FIR was lodged on 01.05.2023. In the FIR, it was inter-alia stated that on that day, the house premises of the detenu [P.O.] was searched and recovery of 72 nos. of plastic vials containing suspected heroin was made. On weighment of the seized suspected contraband, the net weight was found to be 7.29 gms [without vials] and 94.29 gms [with vials]. 24.2. In the FIR, it was inter-alia stated that on that day, the house premises of the detenu [P.O.] was searched and recovery of 72 nos. of plastic vials containing suspected heroin was made. On weighment of the seized suspected contraband, the net weight was found to be 7.29 gms [without vials] and 94.29 gms [with vials]. 24.2. When after recovery and apprehending the accused [detenu], the team proceeded on foot from the P.O., the apprehended accused person attacked the Constable, who was holding his hands, and as a result, the Constable fell down and the apprehended accused started running to escape. The Police team in order to re-apprehend him, opened two rounds of blank fire as warnings, followed by one more round of ammunition which hit the knee of his left leg. After being so shot, the Police team could re-apprehend him. The Constable on duty who sustained injuries on his person, lodged the FIR in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 218/2023 on 03.05.2023. 24.3. The FIR in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 361/2023 was lodged on 14.08.2023 by a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Rupahihat Police Station. In the FIR, it was inter-alia stated that on that day, based on specific information received, one drugs peddler, namely, Bablu Mandal was apprehended from Saidaria, Kodomtola Tiniali. From the possession of Bablu Mandal, four nos. of soap cases containing suspected heroin, weighing 153.16 gms [with soap cases] and 46.72 gms [without soap cases], were recovered. After his interrogation, one Rousana Begum of Village – Kanchanpur was apprehended and the house premises of Rousana Begum was searched and during the search, 17 nos. of plastic vials containing suspected heroin were found and seized. On weighment, the weight was found to be 20.17 gms [with vials] and 2.40 gms [without vials]. The FIR did not name the detenu as one of the accused from whom suspected contraband substance was recovered. However, he was arrested and produced before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon on 10.11.2023 with the allegation that during the course of investigation, the apprehended accused persons revealed his name as one who was involved with them. 25. In the Grounds of Detention prepared along with the Detention Order on 18.02.2025, the details of the afore-mentioned four cases were mentioned. As per the Grounds of Detention bearing no. 25. In the Grounds of Detention prepared along with the Detention Order on 18.02.2025, the details of the afore-mentioned four cases were mentioned. As per the Grounds of Detention bearing no. eCF-588123/144 dated 18.02.2025, the documents furnished to the detenu in connection with the afore-stated four cases were as under :- [i] Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 821/2021 under Sections 22[b]/27, NDPS Act : Photocopies of [i] FIR; [ii] FSL Report; [iii] Inventory of seized NDPS Substances; [iv] Seizure Memo; and [v] Counter Foil of CS as Annexure-A, Annexure-A1, Annexure-A2, Annexure-A3 & Annexure-A4. [ii] Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 212/2023 under Sections 353/224, IPC r/w Section 22[b], NDPS Act : Photocopies of [i] FIR; [ii] Seizure Memo; [iii] FSL Report; [iv] Inventory of seized NDPS Substances; and [v] Counter Foil of CS as Annexure-B, Annexure-B1, Annexure-B2, Annexure-B3 & Annexure-B4. [iii] Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 218/2021 under Sections 353/224, IPC : Photocopies of [i] FIR; [ii] Medico Legal Examination Report; and [iii] Seizure Memo as Annexure-C, Annexure-C1, & Annexure-C2. [iv] Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 361/2021 under Sections 21 [b]/25/29, NDPS Act : Photocopies of [i] FIR; [ii] Seizure Memo; [iii] FSL Report; [iv] Inventory of seized NDPS Substances; and [v] Counter Foil of CS as Annexure-D, Annexure-D1, Annexure-D2, Annexure-D3 & Annexure-D4. 26. On 11.12.2024, the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon vide an Office Letter forwarded additional information in connection with his earlier proposal for issuing Detention Order in respect of the proposed detenu. Along with the Office Letter dated 11.12.2024, copies of Charge-Sheets of Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 821/2021, Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 212/2023 and Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 361/2023 were forwarded. It was informed that the proposed detenu was also named as accused in the FIRs lodged in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 295/2022 and Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 218/2023 and the copies of the FIRs were also forwarded. It was informed that the trials in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 821/2021, Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 212/2023, Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 361/2023, Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 295/2022 and Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 218/2023 were in progress. It was also informed that the proposed detenu was in custody during the period from 28.12.2021 to 15.03.2022 in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 821/2021; from 05.05.2023 to 28.06.2023 in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 361/2023, Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 295/2022 and Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 218/2023 were in progress. It was also informed that the proposed detenu was in custody during the period from 28.12.2021 to 15.03.2022 in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 821/2021; from 05.05.2023 to 28.06.2023 in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 212/2023; from 10.11.2023 to 15.12.2023 in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 361/2023; and from 19.08.2022 to 21.10.2022 in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 295/2022. In the additional information so provided, it was informed that the the proposed detenu was released on bail in all the afore-mentioned cases. It was mentioned that the accused was still suspected to be indulging in illegal activities. 27. The Charge-Sheet no. 23/2021 in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 821/2021 was submitted on 31.01.2022 and in connection with the said case, the detenu was in custody from 28.12.2021 to 15.03.2022 until he was released on bail pursuant to an Order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Nagaon in Special NDPS Case no.22-2022, which has arisen out of Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 821/2021. The detenu was in custody during the period from 05.05.2023 to 28.06.2023 in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 212/2023 wherein Charge-Sheet no. 252/2023 was submitted on 31.07.2023 and he was released on bail in the said case pursuant to an Order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Nagaon in Bail Application no. 1141/2023. In connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 218/2023, the detenu was released on bail pursuant to an Order passed on 19.06.2023 in Bail Petition no. 927/2023, which was preferred in connection with Police Report Case [PRC] no. 953/2023. In connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 218/2023 [corresponding to PRC no. 953/2023], the detenu was shown arrested on 29.05.2023 and Charge-Sheet no. 177/2023 was laid on 31.05.2023. The detenu was in custody during the period from 10.11.2023 to 15.12.2023 in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 361/2023 till he was allowed to go on bail by an Order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Nagaon in Bail Application no. 2122[N]/2023. In the said case, Charge-Sheet no. 394/2023 was submitted on 30.11.2023. 28. The detenu was in custody during the period from 10.11.2023 to 15.12.2023 in connection with Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 361/2023 till he was allowed to go on bail by an Order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Nagaon in Bail Application no. 2122[N]/2023. In the said case, Charge-Sheet no. 394/2023 was submitted on 30.11.2023. 28. The Detention Order for the detenu was based on his alleged offending activities of illicit trafficking in the afore-stated four cases. From the materials on record, the following details have emerged :- Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 821/2021 Date of FIR Period of Custody Date of Charge-Sheet 27.12.2021 28.12.2021 to 15.03.2022 31.01.2022 Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 212/2023 Date of FIR Period of Custody Date of Charge-Sheet 01.05.2023 05.05.2023 to 28.06.2023 31.07.2023 Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 218/2023 Date of FIR Period of Custody Date of Charge-Sheet 03.05.2023 29.05.2023 to 19.06.2023 31.05.2023 Rupahihat Police Station Case no. 361/2023 Date of FIR Period of Custody Date of Charge-Sheet 14.08.2023 10.11.2023 to 15.12.2023 30.11.2023 29. It has emerged from the records of the afore-stated four cases that three of the cases have been registered for offences under the NDPS Act. In view of the detenu’s arraignment as an accused for offences under the NDPS Act, the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon terming the proposed detenu as a habitual offender forwarded the proposal to the Detaining Authority on 24.09.2024. The Superintendent of Police, Nagaon forwarded additional information in connection with the earlier proposal on 11.12.2024. While forwarding additional information, it was mentioned that during the period he was on bail, the detenu was suspected to be indulging in illegal activities. But, the Detaining Authority had passed the Detention Order only on 18.02.2025, that is, after a period of more than four months after receipt of the proposal. The last of the alleged offending activities of the detenu in illicit trafficking of contraband was reported on 14.08.2023. Thus, there was a gap of more than a year in forwarding of the preventive detention proposal from the last prejudicial activity alleged against the proposed detenu and there was delay of more than four months on the part of the Detaining Authority to pass the Detention Order after receipt of the proposal for preventive detention. 30. Thus, there was a gap of more than a year in forwarding of the preventive detention proposal from the last prejudicial activity alleged against the proposed detenu and there was delay of more than four months on the part of the Detaining Authority to pass the Detention Order after receipt of the proposal for preventive detention. 30. In this connection, it appears appropriate to refer to the following observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.A. Abdul Rahman vs. State of Kerala , (1989) 4 SCC 741 :- 10. The conspectus of the above decisions can be summarised thus : The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case. 31. An order for preventive detention under Section 3 [1] of the PIT-NDPS Act is a drastic measure whereby a person can be detained in order to curtail that person’s anticipated activities in illicit trafficking in contraband substances. The object is not to punish the person for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing. The object is not to punish the person for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura and others , (2022) 13 S.C.R. 484 , has observed as an underlying principle that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in passing the detention order and consequently, render the detention order bad and invalid because of the snapping of the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention. A question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In Sushanta Kumar Banik [supra], the proposal to pass an appropriate order of detention under the provisions of the PIT-NDPS Act was submitted by the concerned Superintendent of Police on 28.06.2021 and the detention order was passed on 12.11.2021. The Hon’ble Court has found that the circumstances indicated that the Detaining Authority after the receipt of the proposal from the sponsoring authority was indifferent in passing the order of detention with greater promptitude and as there was no explanation as regards the delay, the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention had been found to have been snapped. 32. From the Table above, it is discernible that the last of the prejudicial activities alleged against the petitioner was reported on 14.08.2023. In the additional information provided on 11.12.2024, the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon made a mention of another case, which was reported and registered on 18.08.2022. It is not a hard and fast rule that merely because there is a substantially long gap in time between the alleged illegal activities and the date of the Detention Order the causal connection is to be taken as snapped and the satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority is to be regarded as unacceptable. But, it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of explanation offered by the Detaining Authority for the delay which have occurred in passing the Detention Order. 33. But, it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of explanation offered by the Detaining Authority for the delay which have occurred in passing the Detention Order. 33. As in the instant case there was delay between the last of the prejudicial activities alleged against the detenu and the passing of the Detention Order, which was unduly long, the Detaining Authority was obligated to provide a reasonable and plausible explanation whether it had examined the matter of delay to arrive at the purported satisfaction. In the absence of any explanation assigned in the Detention Order, the Detaining Authority is required to provide such explanation in the counter affidavit. Since the satisfaction is to be reached by the Detaining Authority himself, the counter affidavit providing the explanation for delay, more particularly, when the period of delay is unduly long, should normally be filed by the Detaining Authority himself though it is also not a hard and fast rule for all cases. The counter affidavit in this writ petition was not filed by the Detaining Authority himself but by an Additional Secretary stating to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no explanation, not to speak of any reasonable and plausible explanation, explaining the period of undue delay which was occasioned in passing the Detention Order on the part of the Detaining Authority. In such backdrop, the passing of the Detention Order is a clear pointer towards sitting over the proposal with laxity resulting in snapping of the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention as the delay was unreasonable and remained unexplained. It has, thus, thrown considerable doubt on subjective satisfaction stated to have been reached by the Detaining Authority. 34. The Detaining Authority for passing the Order of Detention had taken note of the afore-mentioned four criminal proceedings. In all the four criminal proceedings, the detenu was already released on bail. It is not mentioned that after the release of the detenu on bail in the four criminal proceedings that any application for cancellation of bail has been moved by the State on the ground of violation of the conditions of bail by the detenu. In all the four criminal proceedings, the detenu was already released on bail. It is not mentioned that after the release of the detenu on bail in the four criminal proceedings that any application for cancellation of bail has been moved by the State on the ground of violation of the conditions of bail by the detenu. It is always available to the State/Prosecution to move to the Court which has passed an order of bail, with an application for cancellation of bail if the accused so released on bail, is found to have violated any condition of bail by indulging in criminal activities subsequently. If there exists ground to appeal against the bail orders then it is also open to the State/Prosecution to resort to ordinary criminal procedure. Since an order of preventive detention is a drastic and extra-ordinary measure, it is to be resorted to only in an extra-ordinary situation and it should not be resorted to with the circumvention of ordinary criminal procedure. While forwarding the proposal and additional information, an apprehension was raised that the proposed detenu would continue with the alleged activities of illicit trafficking until detained as he kept on indulging in activities of illicit trafficking. Except such bald statement, no supporting materials in support of such statement was forwarded by the proposing authority to the Detaining Authority. The proposing authority was of the view that the detenu’s detention was necessary to deter other drug paddlers and traffickers. In the considered view of this Court, the situations pointed out, albeit without any supporting materials, in the proposal and additional information forwarded by the proposing authority and in the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority, even if the same are accepted, then the same were for the State/Prosecution to approach the competent courts for cancellation of the bail orders only and the same could not be a pretext to pass an order of preventive detention. 35. It is evident from Section 3 [2] of the PIT-NDPS Act that whenever a detention order is made by the State Government or its Officer specially empowered for that purposes an obligation is cast on the State Government to forward a report to the Central Government in respect of that order within a period of ten days. 35. It is evident from Section 3 [2] of the PIT-NDPS Act that whenever a detention order is made by the State Government or its Officer specially empowered for that purposes an obligation is cast on the State Government to forward a report to the Central Government in respect of that order within a period of ten days. The purpose of this provision is evidently to enable the Central Government to keep an eye of observance on the exercise of power under Section 3 [1] by the State Government or its Officers. It ensures that the Central Government is informed of the preventive detention measures taken by the State Government or its Officers under the PIT-NDPS Act and the Parliament has envisaged this oversight mechanism as a crucial one for checking the use of a serious power like preventive detention. The records of the detention proceeding for the instant case do not reveal that any report in compliance of Section 3 [2] of the PIT-NDPS Act was forwarded to the Central Government within a period of ten days from the date, 18.02.2025 when the Detention Order was passed by the Detaining Authority. It needs iteration that the Central Government is empowered under Section 12[1] of the PIT-NDPS Act to revoke or modify, at any time, a detention order made by an officer of the State Government which is the case in hand. In such backdrop, failure to forward a report under Section 3 [2] is an infraction of the procedural safeguard guaranteed to the detenu. 36. There is fundamental right guaranteed to the detenu to represent against his preventive detention order. A conjoint reading of Section 12 of the PIT-NDPS Act and Section 21 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT coupled with the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 22[5] of the Constitution makes it evident that the power of revocation can be exercised by authorities, namely, the empowered officer of the State Government or the Central Government, the State Government as well as the Central Government. 37. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel vs. Union of India and others , (1995) 4 SCC 51 , after having posed a question in paragraph 2 of the Judgment, has answered the question in the following manner :- 2. 37. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel vs. Union of India and others , (1995) 4 SCC 51 , after having posed a question in paragraph 2 of the Judgment, has answered the question in the following manner :- 2. When an order for preventive detention is passed by an officer especially empowered to do so by the Central Government or the State Government, is the said officer required to consider the representation submitted by the detenu? * * * * * 34. ….... By specially empowering a particular officer under Section 3 [2] of the COFEPOSA Act and the PIT NDPS Act the Central Government or the State Government confers an independent power on the said officer to make an order of detention after arriving at his own satisfaction about the activities of the person sought to be detained. Since the detention of the person detained draws its legal sanction from the order passed by such officer, the officer is the detaining authority in respect of the said person. He continues to be the detaining authority so long as the order of detention remains operative. He ceases to be the detaining authority only when the order of detention ceases to operate. This would be on the expiry of the period of detention as prescribed by law or on the order being revoked by the officer himself or by the authority mentioned in Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act and Section 12 of the PIT NDPS Act. There is nothing in the provisions of these enactments to show that the role of the officer comes to an end after he has made the order of detention and that thereafter he ceases to be the detaining authority and the Government concerned which had empowered him assumes the role of the detaining authority. We are unable to construe the provisions of the said enactments as providing for such a limited entrustment of power on the officer who is specially empowered to pass the order. An indication to the contrary is given in Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act and Section 12 of the PIT NDPS Act which preserve the power of such officer to revoke the order that was made by him. This means that the officer does not go out of the picture after he has passed the order of detention. An indication to the contrary is given in Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act and Section 12 of the PIT NDPS Act which preserve the power of such officer to revoke the order that was made by him. This means that the officer does not go out of the picture after he has passed the order of detention. It must, therefore, be held that the officer specially empowered for that purpose continues to be the detaining authority and is not displaced by the Government concerned after he has made the order of detention. Therefore, by virtue of his being the detaining authority he is required to consider the representation of the person detained against the order of detention. * * * * * 38. Having regard to the provisions of Article 22[5] of the Constitution and the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act and the PIT NDPS Act the question posed is thus answered : Where the detention order has been made under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act and the PIT NDPS Act by an officer specially empowered for that purpose either by the Central Government or the State Government the person detained has a right to make a representation to the said officer and the said officer is obliged to consider the said representation and the failure on his part to do so results in denial of the right conferred on the person detained to make a representation against the order of detention. This right of the detenu is in addition to his right to make the representation to the State Government and the Central Government where the detention order has been made by an officer specially authorised by a State Government and to the Central Government where the detention order has been made by an officer specially empowered by the Central Government, and to have the same duly considered. This right to make a representation necessarily implies that the person detained must be informed of his right to make a representation to the authority that has made the order of detention at the time when he is served with the grounds of detention so as to enable him to make such a representation and the failure to do so results in denial of the right of the person detained to make a representation. 38. 38. It is discernible from the Constitution Bench judgment in Kamleshkumar [supra] that when a detention order is made under Section 3 [1] of the PIT-NDPS Act by an Officer specially empowered for that purpose by the State Government, the person detained has a right to make a representation to the said Officer, and the said Officer is obligated to consider the said representation. A failure on his part to do so would result in denial of the right conferred on the person detained to make a representation. Such right of the detenu is in addition to the right to make the representation to the State Government and the Central Government. 39. A Constitution Bench in Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty and others vs. State of West Bengal , (1969) 3 SCC 400 , has held that a detenu has a constitutional right and there is on the State Government a corresponding constitutional obligation to consider the representation irrespective of whether his representation is made before or after the detenu’s case has been referred to the Advisory Board. Another Constitution Bench in Jayanarayan Sukul vs. State of West Bengal , (1970) 1 SCC 219 , has held in the following manner :- 20. Broadly stated, four principles are to be followed in regard to representation of detenus. First, the appropriate authority is bound to give an opportunity to the detenu to make a representation and to consider the representation of the detenu as early as possible. Secondly, the consideration of the representation of the detenu by the appropriate authority is entirely independent of any action by the Advisory Board including the consideration of the representation of the detenu by the Advisory Board. Thirdly, there should not be any delay in the matter of consideration. It is true that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the measure of time taken by the appropriate authority for consideration but it has to be remembered that the Government has to be vigilant in the governance of the citizens. A citizen's right raises a correlative duty of the State. Fourthly, the appropriate Government is to exercise its opinion and judgment on the representation before sending the case along with the detenu's representation to the Advisory Board. If the appropriate Government will release the detenu the Government will not send the matter to the Advisory Board. A citizen's right raises a correlative duty of the State. Fourthly, the appropriate Government is to exercise its opinion and judgment on the representation before sending the case along with the detenu's representation to the Advisory Board. If the appropriate Government will release the detenu the Government will not send the matter to the Advisory Board. If however the Government will not release the detenu the Government will send the case along with the detenu's representation to the Advisory Board. If thereafter the Advisory Board will express an opinion in favour of release of the detenu the Government will release the detenu. If the Advisory Board will express any opinion against the release of the detenu the Government may still exercise the power to release the detenu. 40. Another Constitution Bench in Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal and others , (1975) 3 SCC 198 , has held to the following effect :- 24. …... The Government considers the representation to ascertain essentially whether the order is in conformity with the power under the law. The Board, on the other hand, considers whether in the light of the representation there is sufficient cause for detention. * * * * * 29. ……. If the representation of the detenu is received before the matter is referred to the Advisory Board, the detaining authority considers the representation. If a representation is made after the matter has been referred to the Advisory Board, the detaining authority will consider it before it will send representation to the Advisory Board. 41. From the above exposition of law by the Constitution Benches, it is settled that if the representation is received before the matter is referred to the Advisory Board, the Detaining Authority/the appropriate Government has to consider such representation. If the representation is made after the matter has been referred to the Advisory Board, the Detaining Authority/the appropriate Government shall have to consider the representation first and then send the representation to the Advisory Board. 42. Reverting back to the case in hand, it is an admitted position that the detenu made the Representation to the Detaining Authority and the State Government on 13.03.2025. The reference to the Advisory Board was made only on 26.03.2025 and the Advisory Board submitted its Report on 08.05.2025. 42. Reverting back to the case in hand, it is an admitted position that the detenu made the Representation to the Detaining Authority and the State Government on 13.03.2025. The reference to the Advisory Board was made only on 26.03.2025 and the Advisory Board submitted its Report on 08.05.2025. There is nothing in the records of the detention proceeding, placed by the learned State Counsel, to hold that the Detaining Authority had considered the Representation dated 13.03.2025 of the detenu at any point of time, be it before the reference to the Advisory Board or after the reference to the Advisory Board. On the other hand, the State Government considered and disposed of the Representation dated 13.03.2025 by an Order dated 06.06.2025, that is, after submission of the Report dated 08.05.2025 by the Advisory Board. 43. At this juncture, it needs iteration that the Government is required to consider the representation of the detenu to ascertain essentially whether the order of detention is in conformity with the power under the law and the Advisory Board is required to consider the representation to examine whether there is sufficient cause for detention. Therefore, the power of consideration is completely independent of any action by the Advisory Board, as has been held in the majority view in the three-Judge decision in Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India and others , (2020) 16 SCC 185 . The obligation on the part of the Government to consider the representation is irrespective of the fact whether the representation was made before or after the case was referred to the Advisory Board. It has been held that the consideration should not wait till the report is received from the Advisory Board. 44. It has also been held in Ankit Ashok Jalan [supra] that a specially empowered officer, who passes the order of detention, in exercise of special empowerment, has no statutory role to play at the stage when the report is received from the Advisory Board. The report is to be considered by the appropriate Government and not by the empowered officer. The report of the Advisory Board is meant only for consumption of the appropriate Government. The report is to be considered by the appropriate Government and not by the empowered officer. The report of the Advisory Board is meant only for consumption of the appropriate Government. A specially empowered officer who has passed the order of detention, by statutory intent, is not to be privy to the report nor does the statute contemplate any role for such specially empowered officer at the stage of consideration of the opinion of the Advisory Board. The report is not meant for use by the specially empowered officer who has acted as the Detaining Authority. The law has been held to be settled that a representation can be made to the specially empowered officer who has passed the order of detention in accordance with the power and the representation has to be independently considered by such Detaining Authority without waiting for the report of the Advisory Board. 45. In the Counter, it was admitted about making of the Representation by the detenu on 13.03.2025 against the Detention Order dated 18.02.2025. Though it was further mentioned the said Representation was disposed of by the authorities denying the prayer made in the Representation, no order of the Detaining Authority disposing of the Representation dated 13.03.2025 is available in the records of the detention proceeding. Since the Representation of the detenu submitted on 13.03.2025 before the Detaining Authority in the present case was not at all considered by the Detaining Authority exhibiting inaction, laxity and disobedience to the constitutional obligation, such non- consideration is an act of clear infringement of the constitutional right of the detenu, thereby, making the continued detention of the detenu in terms of the Detention Order illegal, invalid and unconstitutional. 46. Admittedly, the Representation was submitted by the detenu on 13.03.2025 before four authorities, mentioned above. It was by Reference no. Ecf.588123/183 dated 26.03.2025, reference was made to the Advisory Board. It has been contended by the detenu that the Detention Order dated 18.02.205 was confirmed by an Order dated 11.05.2025 for a period of one year from the date of detention without considering the Representation dated 13.03.2025. In the Counter filed on behalf of the respondent nos. Ecf.588123/183 dated 26.03.2025, reference was made to the Advisory Board. It has been contended by the detenu that the Detention Order dated 18.02.205 was confirmed by an Order dated 11.05.2025 for a period of one year from the date of detention without considering the Representation dated 13.03.2025. In the Counter filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 through an Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, the same was responded to by stating that the Detention Order was confirmed for a period of one year on the basis of the Report submitted on 08.05.2025 by the Advisory Board, constituted under the PIT-NDPS Act. It was after the Report of the Advisory Board, the State Government disposed of the Representation on 06.06.2025 through the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home & Political Department. The State Government deferred the consideration of the Representation of the detenu until 06.06.2025, that is, till after submission of the Report of the Advisory Board on 08.05.2025. 47. The preventive detention order in Jayanarayan Sukul [supra] was under the National Security Act, 1950. A Representation was made by the detenu to the State Government on 23.06.1969 and the case of the detenu was placed before the Advisory Board on 01.07.1969. The Advisory Board reported on 13.08.1969 that there was sufficient cause for detention. It was only thereafter the Representation of the detenu was considered and rejected by the State Government on 19.08.1969. In the context of this facts, the Constitution Bench has observed in the following manner : 13. It, therefore, follows that the appropriate authority is to consider the representation of the detenu uninfluenced by any opinion or consideration of the Advisory Board. * * * * * 16. In view of the fact that there is a fundamental right of the detenu to have the representation considered by the appropriate Government such right will be rendered meaningless if the Government will not deal with the matter expeditiously but at its own will and convenience. In the case of Khairul Haque the petitioner made a representation on June 23, 1969. The Advisory Board made its report on August 11, 1969. On August 12, 1969 the Governor confirmed the order of detention. On August 29, 1969 the Governor rejected the petitioner's representation. The delay was not explained in that case. In the case of Khairul Haque the petitioner made a representation on June 23, 1969. The Advisory Board made its report on August 11, 1969. On August 12, 1969 the Governor confirmed the order of detention. On August 29, 1969 the Governor rejected the petitioner's representation. The delay was not explained in that case. The disposal of the representation by the Government after the receipt of the Report of the Advisory Board was found by this Court to raise a doubt there whether the Government considered the representation in an independent manner. This independent consideration by the appropriate Government is implicit in Article 22 of the Constitution. * * * * * 18. It is established beyond any measure of doubt that the appropriate authority is bound to consider the representation of the detenu as early as possible. The appropriate Government itself is bound to consider the representation as expeditiously as possible. The reason for immediate consideration of the representation is too obvious to be stressed. The personal liberty of a person is at stake. Any delay would not only be an irresponsible act on the part of the appropriate authority but also unconstitutional because the Constitution enshrines the fundamental right of a detenu to have his representation considered and it is imperative that when the liberty of a person is in peril immediate action should be taken by the relevant authorities. * * * * * 21. In the present case, the State of West Bengal is guilty of infraction of the constitutional provisions not only by inordinate delay of the consideration of the representation but also by putting of the consideration till after the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board. As we have already observed there is no explanation for this inordinate delay. The Superintendent who made the enquiry did not affirm an affidavit. The State has given no information as to why this long delay occurred. The inescapable conclusion in the present case is that the appropriate authority failed to discharge its constitutional obligation by inactivity and lack of independent judgment. 48. The Superintendent who made the enquiry did not affirm an affidavit. The State has given no information as to why this long delay occurred. The inescapable conclusion in the present case is that the appropriate authority failed to discharge its constitutional obligation by inactivity and lack of independent judgment. 48. On perusal of the contents of the Order dated 06.06.2025 whereby the Representation of the detenu was disposed of by the State Government, it is noticed that while considering the Representation, reference was made to the Report of the Advisory Board to observe that there was unanimity of opinion of the Advisory Board as regards sufficiency. The State Government expressed a view that the Detention Order and the Grounds of Detention were read over and explained to the detenu in his local language, which he understood and therefore, it discarded the ground taken in the Representation as about non- communication. Reference about unanimity of opinion of the Advisory Board regarding sufficiency go to demonstrate that the consideration and disposal of the Representation was not independent and the same were influenced by the opinion reached by the Advisory Board. 49. The parameters of consideration of a representation of a detenu by the appropriate Government are different from the parameters of consideration of a representation by the Advisory Board. The appropriate Government is to consider the representation immediately and independently, without waiting for the opinion of the Advisory Board regarding sufficiency of cause for preventive detention. In the present case, the State Government has clearly failed to discharge its constitutional obligation to consider and dispose of the Representation of the detenu, received on 13.03.2025, by sitting over it till 06.06.2025. Such inordinate delay coupled with the fact that the State Government waited for the opinion of the Advisory Board to consider the Representation has rendered its action a non-independent one. There is clear failure on the part of the State Government in the discharge of constitutional obligations. The same has resulting infringed the constitutional rights of the detenu. 50. In the proposal forwarded the Proposing Authority mentioned that educational qualification of the detenu and the school where the detenu was admitted were not known. There is clear failure on the part of the State Government in the discharge of constitutional obligations. The same has resulting infringed the constitutional rights of the detenu. 50. In the proposal forwarded the Proposing Authority mentioned that educational qualification of the detenu and the school where the detenu was admitted were not known. It has been a categorical assertion throughout that English is a language which is not at all understandable by the detenu and therefore, furnishing of the copies of the Detention Order, the Grounds of Detention and the supporting documents in English language had deprived the detenu from making effective communication. From the records as well as the assertions made by the respondent authorities it has been established that the contents of the Detention Order and the Grounds of Detention, which were in English language, were read over and explained to the detenu in Assamese language under videography and in presence of witnesses and thereafter, copies were also served on him. The fact of such reading over and explaining the contents to the detenu in Assamese language is a clear pointer towards the detenu’s familiarity with Assamese language and non-familiarity with English language. The transcripts of the Detention Order, the Grounds of Detention and the supporting documents, mentioned in paragraph 24 above, were not provided to the detenu in Assamese. 51. In Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs. Union of India , (1981) 2 SCC 427 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court examining the issue of sufficient compliance or otherwise with the constitutional right provided in Article 22[5] of the Constitution has observed as under :- 20. 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 that Shri XXXXXX, 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. ‘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 Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 Supp 2 SCR 918 : AIR 1962 SC 911 : (1962) 1 Cri. L.J. 797 and Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, (1969) 1 SCR 227 : AIR 1969 SC 43 : 1969 Cri. L.J. 274. 52. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the detenu is that the Grounds of Detention as well as the Detention Order were in English language. Admittedly, their contents were read over and explained to him in Assamese language. But, their copies were furnished in English language and not in Assamese language. The supporting materials were also in English language and the detenu was not provided with their translated copies as the detenu is not familiar with English language and was not able to understand the contents of the Detention Order and the Grounds of Detention by reading himself, the requirements of enabling him to make effective communication was not satisfied. 53. In the admitted fact situation of the case, we have to observe that the facts of reading over and explaining the contents of the Detention Order and the Grounds of Detention to the detenu on 26.02.2025 and service of copies of the Detention Order, the Grounds of Detention and the supporting documents in English language to the detenu without translation in the local language understood by him have violated the constitutional mandate contained in Article 22[5] of the Constitution. 54. Merely because the State Government or the Advisory Board had rejected the Representation of the detenu, it cannot be held that the Central Government is discharged from its responsibility to consider and dispose of the Representation of the detenu expeditiously. 54. Merely because the State Government or the Advisory Board had rejected the Representation of the detenu, it cannot be held that the Central Government is discharged from its responsibility to consider and dispose of the Representation of the detenu expeditiously. The Representation is not found to have been considered and disposed of by the Central Government in the case in hand. 55. From what have emerged from the discussion made above and the reasons assigned therein, we hold that the constitutional rights of the detenu enshrined in Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution have been violated due to non-adherence to the constitutional safeguards required to be afforded by the Detaining Authority and the State Government. The detention of the detenu in terms of the Detention Order is found to be illegal, invalid and unconstitutional. Therefore, the Detention Order dated 18.02.2025 and the Order of Confirmation dated 11.05.2025 whereby the Detention Order dated 18.02.2025 was extended up to one year are hereby set aside. 56. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. It is ordered that the detenu is to be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case. 57. The records of the detention proceeding are returned to the State Counsel.