Pranab Doley’s NSA detention rested on “stale cases”, the Gauhati High Court has held, quashing the order after finding that the authorities adopted “a short cut” instead of following due process, withheld key documents and left his second representation undecided.
Guwahati: A detention order that leaned on 13 criminal cases, one ending in discharge and nine in acquittal, could not stand, the Gauhati High Court has ruled while setting aside the preventive detention of Golaghat activist Pranab Doley under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detention order and the grounds of detention, both dated July 30, 2026, were “not sustainable on facts and in law”, and the Court directed that he be set at liberty forthwith [Pranab Doley v. Union of India & Ors.].
A Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund allowed the habeas corpus petition on November 6, 2026. Justice Surana wrote the judgment, which had been reserved on October 14.
Cases that had already ended
Doley had been discharged in one of the listed cases and acquitted in nine others, the Bench found, yet none of this was brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority. The Court held that the lack of full disclosure about the status of the 13 cases vitiated the order on account of malice in law, adding that the Detaining Authority “had also turned its blind eye towards the same by not calling for information about the status of those cases”.
“As the petitioner is found to have been detained on the strength of stale cases, including those wherein he has been discharged and acquitted, 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…”
What the order said
The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political Department, passed the order after recording satisfaction that Doley’s activities were prejudicial to public order and the security of the State. He was directed to be held in the District Jail, Golaghat. The grounds of detention listed 13 criminal cases registered against him between 2017 and 2026.
One of them concerned June 28, 2026 at the site of the proposed Assam Tea Tribe Museum and ATDC-Hyatt hotel project in Golaghat, where, according to the authorities, protesters trespassed, assaulted police personnel and tried to damage property. The authorities also cited his foreign travel and past receipt of foreign remittances. These remain allegations, and Doley’s role in them has not been decided by any court.
Papers that never reached him
Charge sheets in 11 cases and the investigation material relied upon were not furnished to Doley, the Court noted. The order of August 14, 2026 rejecting his first representation referred to police records and situation reports (SITREPs), which were not shown to have been given to him either.
“…the allegations against the petitioner is vague and bereft of material particulars and thus, insufficient to enable the petitioner to understand the specific charges against him… it cannot be expected that the detenu will be able to make an effective representation before the prescribed authorities in the absence of relevant materials being furnished to the petitioner.”
The representation nobody decided
Doley made his first representation, dated August 4, 2026, before he could meet his family or a lawyer. Once the High Court facilitated those meetings, he filed a detailed second representation on August 10, 2026. In the Bench’s view it should have been forwarded to the authorities concerned and decided promptly, and leaving it undisposed of vitiated his continued detention.
As for the foreign travel and remittances, the Court found no link shown between those activities and any conduct prejudicial to national security, and noted that the transactions went back several years.
The four grounds on which the order fell
“The reference to stale criminal cases and old foreign travel and past receipt of foreign remittances have the effect of snapping the live and proximate link between the prejudicial activities of the petitioner and the purpose of detention and failure on the part of the detaining authority in explaining such delay in any manner, or providing the petitioner with relevant documents.”
The Bench added that the detaining authority “has not applied its mind as to whether or not the ordinary laws of the Country was insufficient to deal with the activities of the petitioner”. With the detention vitiated on these four grounds, it declined to examine the other grounds raised.
Release, and what was left open
The detention order (No. eCF-821601/81) and the grounds of detention (No. eCF-821601/84) were set aside and quashed, and Doley was ordered to be released forthwith. Parties were left to bear their own costs.
The judgment deals only with the legality of the preventive detention. It expresses no view on the merits of the criminal cases still pending against Doley, in which he is presumed innocent until proved guilty.
Why the judgment matters
Preventive detention allows the State to hold a person without trial, so the courts insist on strict compliance with every safeguard under Article 22(5). The ruling underlines that a detaining authority must be told of discharges and acquittals in the cases it relies on, that a detenu must receive the material used against him, and that a later representation made after access to counsel cannot be left unanswered.
It also repeats that old cases and dated transactions cannot sustain detention without a live and proximate link, and that the authority must consider whether ordinary criminal law is enough before turning to the National Security Act.
Case Title: Pranab Doley v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(Crl.) No. 40 of 2026; 2026:GAU-AS:16313-DB]
Bench: Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, Gauhati High Court
Date of Judgment: November 6, 2026
For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate S. Borthakur, with D.K. Agarwala
For the Respondents: S. Chakraborty, CGC; D. Mozumdar, Additional Advocate General, Assam; P. Sarmah, Additional Senior Government Advocate