Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has criticised the Assam government’s handling of criminal cases cited to justify the preventive detention of land rights activist Pranab Doley under the National Security Act (NSA).
The High Court, while quashing the preventive detention of activist Pranab Doley under the NSA, observed that Assam government had failed to disclose crucial details of his acquittals and discharge in several criminal cases cited as grounds for his detention.
In its on order on Friday (November 6 ), the Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund observed that the sponsoring and detaining authorities appeared to have adopted a “short cut” by invoking preventive detention instead of following due process of law, including challenging the orders through which Doley had been acquitted or discharged in criminal cases.
The court found that out of the 13 criminal cases cited in the grounds of detention, Doley had been acquitted in nine cases and discharged in one. Of the three remaining proceedings, one had been stayed by the High Court, another was pending investigation, while the third was at the evidence stage.
Also read: Assam: Gauhati High Court quashes indigenous activist Pranab Doley’s detention under NSA
However, the detention order and its accompanying grounds did not disclose that Doley had been acquitted or discharged in those cases.
The court noted that the Assam government, in its affidavit-in-opposition, acknowledged that Doley had been acquitted in some cases because witnesses had turned hostile or the prosecution could not examine material witnesses.
The state had also argued that the circumstances reflected in investigation materials and reports were considered by the competent authority while deciding on preventive detention.
However, the Bench observed that the allegations of witness intimidation and the circumstances surrounding the acquittals were not mentioned in the grounds of detention. The materials supporting these allegations were also not furnished to Doley.
The court further pointed out that there was no disclosure in the state’s affidavit about whether the sponsoring authority had provided the complete status of all 13 criminal cases to the detaining authority.
It held that the failure to disclose such vital information vitiated the detention order, as the authority responsible for deciding on preventive detention was required to consider all relevant facts before arriving at its subjective satisfaction.
The Bench observed that the detaining authority had also failed to make an independent inquiry into the status of the criminal cases before issuing the detention order.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments on preventive detention, the High Court reiterated that the non-placement or non-consideration of material facts, which could influence the decision of the detaining authority, can invalidate the subjective satisfaction required for ordering preventive detention.
The court said the authorities could not disregard the acquittals and discharge orders while relying on the same cases to justify Doley’s preventive detention.
“…the only inference that can be drawn under the facts of this case is that the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority, by issuing detention order, has adopted a short cut to detain the petitioner instead of following due process of law by assailing the respective orders by virtue of which the petitioner was acquitted and/or discharged in criminal cases referred above,” the judgment observed.
Court questions reliance on old cases
The Bench also questioned the relevance of several criminal cases dating back to 2017, 2018 and 2020 in justifying preventive detention in July 2026.
It held that reliance on stale cases, particularly those in which Doley had already been acquitted or discharged, weakened the live and proximate connection between the alleged activities and the necessity for preventive detention.
The court observed that the detaining authority had not adequately established why preventive detention was necessary despite the availability of ordinary criminal law to deal with the allegations.
Other deficiencies in detention process
Apart from the omission of acquittals and discharge orders, the High Court identified other procedural deficiencies, including the failure to provide relevant documents relied upon by the authorities and the non-consideration of Doley’s second representation dated August 10, 2026.
The Bench also questioned the reliance on Doley’s foreign travels and foreign exchange remittances, observing that the authorities had failed to establish any direct connection between those transactions and activities prejudicial to public order or national security.
Holding that these deficiencies were sufficient to invalidate the preventive detention, the High Court allowed Doley’s habeas corpus petition, quashed the detention order dated July 30, 2026, and directed his immediate release from preventive detention.