The Gauhati High Court has quashed the preventive detention of Assam-based activist Pranab Doley under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), holding that the detention order was unsustainable on four grounds, including reliance on stale criminal cases, failure to furnish relevant documents, non-consideration of a second representation and the absence of a live and proximate link between his foreign travel/remittances and the alleged prejudicial activities.
A Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund allowed Doley’s habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order dated July 30, 2026, passed by the Assam Government under Section 3(2) of the NSA. The Court directed that he be released forthwith from preventive detention.
The detention order had cited several criminal cases registered against Doley over the years, allegations concerning road blockades and protests, as well as foreign travel and foreign-exchange remittances. The State had relied on these materials to contend that his activities were prejudicial to public order and the security of the State.
The Court, however, found that the reliance on old criminal cases and past foreign travel and remittances, without an adequate explanation for the delay, snapped the live and proximate link between the alleged activities and the purpose of preventive detention. It also noted that the State had not demonstrated how the foreign visits or remittances were connected with activities prejudicial to the security of the State or public order.
The Bench further found that relevant documents had not been furnished to Doley and that his second representation dated August 10, 2026, had not been considered. It also observed that the detaining authority had not applied its mind to whether ordinary criminal law was insufficient to deal with the activities attributed to him.
Holding that these deficiencies vitiated the detention, the High Court set aside and quashed both the detention order and the grounds of detention. It directed that Doley be released and set at liberty forthwith.
The Court clarified that its conclusion rested on the four grounds identified in the judgment and, therefore, it did not consider it necessary to examine the other grounds raised by the petitioner.
