Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

High Court of Manipur Sets Aside Detention Order Under NDPS Act -  “Unexplained Delay”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the High Court of Manipur, comprising HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA, has set aside a detention order issued under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act NDPS , 1988. The judgment, dated 07.07.2023, came in response to Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 57 of 2023 filed by Mr. Aribam Sidik Ali, who had been detained under the Act.

The key highlight of the judgment was the Court’s finding of an “unexplained delay” on the part of the Central Government in disposing of Mr. Ali’s representation against the detention order. The Court observed that the State Government had followed the necessary procedures within the stipulated time, but it took an additional 12 days for the Central Government to consider the representation, and this delay remained unexplained.

The Court’s ruling, citing precedent cases, emphasized the significance of prompt action in handling representations related to detention orders. It was held that unexplained delays in such matters render the detention order invalid.

In its judgment, the High Court noted: “The Central Government could not explain the delay of 12 (twelve) days’ time taken while disposing of the representation even after receiving para-wise comment. On this ground alone, the detention order cannot be sustained.”

The detention order issued on 09.12.2022 and the subsequent confirmation order dated 07.02.2023 were declared null and void, leading to the immediate release of Mr. Aribam Sidik Ali from custody.

Date of Decision: 07.07.2023

Aribam Sidik Ali vs The Commissioner

Latest Legal News