NANCY Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Sophie, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, and Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, learned CGC for the respondent No. 2.

(2.) Personal liberty of an individual is the most precious and prized right guaranteed under the Constitution in Part-III thereof. The State has been granted the power to curb such rights under criminal laws as also under the laws of preventive detention, which, therefore, are required to be exercised with due caution as well as upon a proper appreciation of facts as to whether such acts are in any way prejudicial to the interest and the security of the State and its citizens or seeks to disturb public law and order, warranting the issue of such an order. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take into consideration the facts involved.

(3.) The petitioner in the instant writ proceedings is the wife of one Mr. Abi Neikha, who by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has challenged the Detention Order dtd. 26/7/2023 passed by the District Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner, Kohima; the Government Approval Order dtd. 7/8/2023 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland and the Confirmation Order dtd. 24/10/2023 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland.