Gauhati HC Quashes NSA Detention of Assam MLA Aminul Islam Accused of Calling Pulwama Terror Attack a ‘Govt Conspiracy’

The Gauhati High Court has set aside the National Security Act (NSA) detention of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) MLA Aminul Islam, who had been arrested over allegations that he publicly claimed the Central Government conspired in the Pulwama terror attack and orchestrated the Pahalgam killings.

The bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar held that the detention was “unsustainable in law".

Islam was arrested on 24 April 2025 after Nagaon Police registered an FIR accusing him of circulating a video blaming the Central Government for the Pahalgam attack and declaring at a public meeting that the 2019 Pulwama attack was a conspiracy by the government and its top functionaries.

According to the FIR, these statements were factually incorrect, inflammatory and capable of inciting unrest, apart from allegedly supporting an enemy nation and undermining India’s sovereignty.

On 14 May 2025, the Additional Sessions Judge granted Islam bail with strict conditions restricting him from making any further provocative statements. But later the same day, the District Magistrate, Nagaon invoked Section 3(2) of the NSA to order his preventive detention, directing that he be lodged at Central Jail, Nagaon. The Governor approved this detention on 25 May, and Islam’s representations challenging the action were submitted on 22 May.

The High Court found that while the authorities had informed Islam of his right to make representations to the State Government and the Advisory Board, the record did not show that he was informed of his constitutional right to make a representation to the detaining authority itself.

The bench said that this right forms part of the protections guaranteed under Article 22(5), and that its non-communication affects the validity of a preventive detention order.

Court also observed that Islam’s representations, though forwarded promptly by the jail authorities, were transmitted to the State Government and the Advisory Board by the District Magistrate only on 4 June.

The bench noted that no explanation was provided for this interval, and emphasises that the constitutional mandate requires that such representations be dealt with expeditiously.

Another aspect recorded was the delay in informing Islam of his right to make a representation to the Central Government. The communication was issued on 7 June, after he had been in detention for more than three weeks. Court held that in preventive detention matters, where personal liberty is curtailed, such rights must be conveyed at the earliest possible stage.

The bench also took note of a corrigendum issued on 12 June to correct a reference in the original detention order to the notification under which powers were delegated to the District Magistrate. Court did not comment on the merits of the corrigendum but noted its timing in the sequence of events.

While Islam had raised additional grounds, including the supply of documents, consideration of his bail conditions, and the period of detention, the court stated that, given its findings on communication of representation rights and delays in handling his submissions, it was not necessary to examine the remaining grounds.

On this basis, the High Court set aside the detention orders dated 14 May and 25 June 2025 and directed that Islam be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Case Title: Aminul Islam vs. UOI and 4 Others

Order Date: November 27, 2025

Bench: Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar