Power to make orders detaining certain persons (1) The Central Government or the State Government may,- (a) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defense of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or (b) if satisfied with respect to any foreigner that with a view to regulating his continued presence in India or with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. Section 3, in so far as is material, is extracted below:ģ. The proviso to Section 3(4) states that, if the grounds for detention under Section 8 are communicated to the detenu after five days, but not later than ten days from the date of detention, the words twelve days will be substituted by fifteen days in that sub-section. It also states that no detention order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after making the order, unless it has 3 been approved by the State Government. Section 3(4) of the Act provides that when a detention order is made by a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police under Section 3(3) of the Act, the Magistrate/Commissioner shall forthwith report the fact of the detention order to the State Government, along with the grounds on which the order was made, and any other relevant facts. The District Magistrate it was urged - reported the detention after a lapse of five days, which violated Section 3(4).ĥ. The appellants contention was that the District Magistrate failed to report the detention to the State Government forthwith, as provided under Section 3(4) of the Act. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Manipur High Court, challenging the order of detention. OnĢ0 July 2017, the Government of Manipur approved the order of detention.Ĥ. On 17 July 2017, the District Magistrate served the detenu with the grounds for his detention. On 12 July 2017, the District Magistrate, Bishnupur, Manipur, passed an order of detention against him, apprehending that the detenu was likely to be released on bail.

and Section 25(1-C) of the Arms Act, 1959, allegedly for being a member of the cadre of the KLA organization, and for possession of fire arms.

The appellants husband, Jangkhohao Khongsai, with two others, was arrested by the police on, and charged with offences under Section 400 of the I.P.C. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The High Court recorded that this was the only issue which formed the subject of the challenge to the order of preventive detention.

The question before the High Court was whether the provisions of Section 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980, requiring the detaining authority to report the detention to the State Government forthwith, have been violated. These proceedings have arisen from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Manipur High Court, at Imphal, dated 3 April 2018 in Writ Petition (Crl.)NoĤ3 of 2017.

Forthwith vs post haste