Based on a July 19, 2023, FIR, NIA arrested the self-styled army chief of the organisation Thokchom Shyamjai Singh, its intelligence officer Laimayum Anand Sharma, and a driver Salam Ibomcha Meitei on March 13. The three are facing charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal conspiracy and waging war against the state, as well as for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

NIA has alleged that the three are involved in raising funds for UNLF through extortion, as well as recruiting cadres and procuring weapons to incite violence in Manipur. Notably, the union government, Manipur state government and the UNLF(P) had signed a tripartite peace accord in November 2023.

A habeas corpus petition was moved following their arrest, also seeking the setting aside of their arrest, but the plea was subsequently withdrawn from before the Delhi High Court on April 16, with the court granting liberty to the petitioners to move the same issues before the competent court.

The present plea challenges their arrest as well as their remand as illegal. The petitioners have contended that their arrest violates their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution. The petitioners, represented by advocate Siddhartha Borgohain, have also pointed out that “grounds of arrest‟ ought to have been communicated to them in writing at the time of their arrest.

NIA, represented by Rahul Tyagi, opposing the maintainability of their plea, had submitted that the petitioners could not have moved Delhi HC but rather could have either moved the Supreme Court with a writ petition or challenged their remand orders before the NIA special court.

Rejecting the NIA’s contention, Justice Anup Bhambhani concluded, “It therefore does not stand to reason why the words “before Competent Court/Forum” appearing in order dated 16.04.2024 would, for any conceivable reason, exclude a Bench dealing with a different subject-matter allocation, even if the different Bench exercises powers under the same Article 226 of the Constitution…what is relevant is that the Bench before which the petition is filed must be competent to deal with that subject matter.”

Holding the petition to be maintainable, Justice Bhambhani went on to record, “All else apart, this court is of the view that in matters concerning questions of personal liberty, it would never be just or proper to reject a plea based on a pedantic, hyper-technical or restrictive construction of order dated 16.04.2024 made by the Division Bench, especially when that order expressly grants to the petitioners liberty to agitate the same issues before the competent court or forum.”