SUPENGNUNGLA Vs. STATE OF NAGAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who is the wife of detenu Nungshi Luen prays for a writ of Habeas Corpus.

(2.) The detenu was arrested at Dimapur by the Army and after interrogation handed over to the West Dimapur P.S. where a case being case No. 21/97/u/s 7 of the National Security Act and u/s 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was registered. On 5-2-1997 he was produced before the Magistrate who remanded him to police custody till 6-2-1997. Thereafter he was remanded to judicial custody which was extended from time to time upto 6-3-1997. Detenus bail petition was moved on 5-2-1997 before the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur and was waiting disposal when the ,impugned detention order dated 20-2-1997 as reproduced below was passed on the following grounds as per Annexure-A/2, further supported by a Schedule. Grounds of detention Shri Nungshi Luen Ao SS Political Organiser of NSCN (1M) S/o Mangyangjiba of Mangme tong village. Mokokchung. District, Nagaland. Whereas the State Government of Nagaland have made detention order against you under sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 8 of the National Security Act. 1980. Now therefore, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act the State Government do hereby inform you that the said detention order has been made against you on the following grounds:

(3.) Now going through the grounds of detention as set forth above except for alleged staleness thereof we have no slightest doubt in our mind that the seditious activities alleged against the detenu are relevant and germane to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned order of detention. So far as the criticism that the grounds are stale, vague to a certain extent the learned counsel is correct in his criticism, but it cannot be ignored that there is an element of continuity secessionist activities as alleged and contained ill Annexure-A-3, no doubt relate back to the year 1975, but it cannot be overlooked that the grounds those contained a statement to the effect that the detenu has joined in unlawful association and he has always persuaded the illegal causes and secessionist and antisocial activities. Tt is specifically alleged that in January 1994 the detenu again joined NSCN (1M) an unlawful association and took up the assignment as SS political organiser, and since then he is actively involved in strengthening the secessionist cause of NSCN (1M). Thus there is element of continuity in the grounds of detention as contained in schedule A-3, a reference has been made that the detenu having joined in the rank of SS i.e. up in the year 1956 rose up-to the rank of SS Brigadier in 1973, but he surrendered in 1975, but there is also an allegation that he has resumed his activities. Now this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, that too in a petition for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot go into the truth and veracity of the allegations, all that it concerns is the relevance of the allegationsT to the object sought to be achieved and in this, view of the matter, criticism made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.