This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
This monthly roundup for September 2023 contains important legal stories from the High Courts across the country that keeps you updated on various aspects of law.
The detenue specifically alleged that he made a representation against impugned detention order, however, the same was not considered by the detaining authority.
“This right of a detenu to make an effective representation against a preventive detention order is a very sacrosanct and sanctus constitutional right and such constitutional safeguard is ingrained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India”
The live and proximate link between the past conduct of the detenue and the imperative need to detain, must be harmonised to rely upon the alleged illegal activities of the detenue.
Holding that Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 13 SCC 722 does not lay down the correct law, the Supreme Court observed that Section 3(2) has nothing to do with the period of detention.
“This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.”
The Court also observed that fundamentalism pertaining to a Muslim is merely someone who believes in the fundamentals of Islam and the same cannot have a negative bearing.
Jharkhand High Court rejected any justification on part of the State regarding delay of at least 50 days on the ground that the matter was ‘under the process’.
Supreme Court said that the object and purpose of the enactment of UAPA is to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities. To punish such a person who is continued as a member of such unlawful association which is declared unlawful due to unlawful activities can be said to be in furtherance of providing for effective prevention of the unlawful activities.
Allahabad High Court granted bail to Atikur Rehman who was arrested in 2020 along with Siddique Kappan and two others on their way to meet the family of the Hathras Rape and Murder victim.
The Manipur High Court directed the State Authority to pay Rs. 50,000 to the detenu as compensation for his illegal detention in a drug trafficking case.
Detaining Authority gravely erred in relying upon the illegible documents which is equivalent to non-placement of translated-RUDs in a language which the detenu understands, which consequently vitiates the ‘subjective satisfaction’ arrived at by the Detaining Authority.
Bombay High Court: In a preventive detention case, the Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ., held that any
Of all the things a system should fear, Complacency heads the list. The case in hand gave us a wake-up call and made us question ourselves as to whether we have become complacent and conditioned while dealing with preventive detention cases. Having got that call from within, we decided to shake up and wriggle out of the complacency and do a reality check.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J. dismissed a petition which was filed assailing the detention
Signing in English and understanding English are two different things and it cannot be said that if one signs in English, therefore he has full understanding of the language. In other order, the ability to write one’s signature in English does not translate to having a working understanding of the language.
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While dismissing the petition seeking release from preventive detention to the detenu involved in Pulwama
Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench of Rabindranath Samanta and Soumen Sen, JJ., allowed a writ petition which was filed invoking the
“Preventive detention in independent India is to be exercised with utmost regard to constitutional safeguards.”