Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The ‘Law and Order’ problems typically affect only individuals or small groups, whereas ‘public order’ disruptions affect the community’s normal functioning.”
“The Detaining Authority ought to have examined whether they were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities which is the very basis of the preventive detention order.”
Justice Atul Sreedharan’s transfer recommendation to Chhattisgarh High Court was modified by the SC Collegium in October 2025.
“If a detenue satisfied the Court that there was an unexplained delay in execution of the detention order, then such an order would be interpreted as breaking the live-proximity link in between the event of detention and passing of the detention order.”
In September 2025, a RTI query was filed before the designated CPIO of the Supreme Court, seeking the statistics on pendency and disposal of cases by the Supreme Court.
“The live and reasonable nexus between the alleged activities and purpose of detention was irretrievably lost by the unexplained delay of nearly over a year.”
“Sometimes offences are grievous, and sometimes, the manner in which a person behaves (someone with criminal antecedents) also creates fear amongst people. Therefore, for maintaining public order, peace, and tranquility in the region, this is a restraining step required in the attending set of facts.”
“Bail is the rule, but jail is the exception and an accused should be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty at the trial.”
“Since preventive detention, is an anathema to personal liberty, one has to give equal credence and weightage to the personal liberties of a person which are proposed to be suspended by way of the order of preventive detention.”
“The drug menace distorted the health and fabric of society and was the originator of petty offences as well as heinous crimes. The involvement of various terrorist groups and syndicates in drug trafficking threatened the national security and sovereignty of States via narco-terrorism.”
“In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the power to detain a person without trial, for security of the State or maintenance of public order must be strictly construed. But where individual liberty comes into conflict with the security of the State or public order, then the liberty of the individual must give way to the larger interests of the nation.”
SC Collegium modified its proposal to recommend Justice Rabstan as Chief Justice of his parent High Court of J&K and Ladakh and he took oath of office on 27-9-2024.
“In a democratic country, protestors can protest but they cannot disturb the protocol of Prime Minister and Vice President;” State argued.
Justice N. Kotiswar Singh was serving as the Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, prior to being elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 18-7-2024.
Respondents have not taken recourse to the procedure contemplated by Section 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, which provides for procedure to be adopted in case where the detenue is absconding.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 7 R. 11(d) — Suit or application whether barred by limitation — When no limitation provided for — Power
Justice Tashi Rabstan was earlier recommended to be appointed as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court; however, the SC Collegium modified its proposal to recommend him as Chief Justice of his parent High Court of J&K and Ladakh.
“There is no iota of doubt that the preventive detention of the petitioner is a sheer abuse of jurisdiction of preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.”
Justice N. Kotiswar Singh was serving as the Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, prior to being elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 18-7-2024.
“When the liberty of a person is imperiled, immediate action should be taken by the relevant authorities”