Gauhati High Court quashes detention of man accused of inciting violence after singer Zubeen Garg’s death

What was the case?

• An FIR was lodged against the accused in September 2025 alleging that after the death of late Zubeen Garg a large mob became agitated and tried to overpower police at the Guwahati airport in order to have a glimpse of the late singer.
• It was alleged that the ‘unruly mob’ started various acts of vandalism and attacked the media persons and thereby, damaged one costly camera worth several lakhs.
• It was further alleged that the aforesaid unruly mob totally went out of control and created a chaotic scene at the airport and obstructed the police personnel from performing their official duties.
• Thereafter, another FIR was registered against the accused for obstructing CID from carrying out investigation related to the singer’s death. It was alleged that an unruly mob led by the accused-detenue, damaged the police vehicle and the informant and other members of the CID police team sustained grievous injuries.
• When the accused was in custody, the commissioner of police, Guwahati, issued the detention order directing the detention of the accused under Section 3(2) of the NSA, 1980.
• The case of the detaining authority was that the detention order was passed on the basis of credible evidence and confidential intelligence inputs that revealed that the accused was actively involved in activities intended to create social unrest in the state by organising mass protests under the pretext of seeking justice for the demise of Zubeen Garg.
• Feeling aggrieved by the detention order, the accused moved Gauhati High Court.

Court’s observation

• The detention order issued by the commissioner of police, Guwahati, was approved by the Assam government.
• It is seen that no communication, whatsoever, was ever made to the accused intimating him about his valuable right of representation to the detaining authority.
• In this connection, it is relevant to mention that Section 8 of the NSA, 1980, mandates that grounds of detention be disclosed to the person effected by the order and the person shall be given the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order to the appropriate government.
• The right of the detenue to make a representation to the detaining authority in addition to the state and the central government, is one of the most valuable right which has been mandated under Article 22(5) of the constitution and non-intimation of such valuable right takes away his right to make a representation before the detaining authority.
• A violation of the mandatory procedure by the detaining authority makes the whole process of detention unsustainable under the law.
• This valuable right of representation was not intimated to the accused, thereby vitiating the whole act of preventive detention.

‘Unexplained delay’

• Any lapse in consideration and disposal of the representation submitted by a detenue without any appropriate and convincing explanations, makes the action of the state authority non sustainable under the laws.
• This lapse of unexplained delay has been treated as fatal and the same is treated as a strong ground for the detenue to challenge his continuous detention under the prevention detention.
• The state government took 17 days to dispose of the representations submitted by the accused and no convincing explanation could be given by the state government.
• Therefore, such unexplained delay can obviously be termed as fatal and thereby, providing an indefeasible right of liberty to the accused.
• The state has violated the mandates of Article 22(5) (protection against arrest and detention) of the Constitution of India as well as the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, while passing and executing the detention order.