Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“When the liberty of a person is imperiled, immediate action should be taken by the relevant authorities”
The Court pointed out that the petitioner could have been detained only under Section 8 (1)(a-1) of the PSA and not under Section 8(1)(a) of the PSA, as both the clauses (a) and (a-1) operate in different fields
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
There is a distinction between “Law and Order” and “Public Order”, i.e., offences that target specific individuals fall under the category of “Law and Order” and it is only when the criminal activities of an individual adversely affect the public at large that their conduct is deemed to disturb “Public Order”.
The Court pointed out that to be influenced by the forceful submission of internal security of the State, and to reject a bail application where the State has utterly failed to disclose any material against the accused, is a sure shot recipe for miscarriage of justice.
“In other words, a detenue may be able to make an effective representation if the details of the facts, on the basis of which conclusion is drawn by the detaining authority, are furnished to him”.
The Court noted that petitioner had been made to suffer loss of his liberty for a cumulative period of more than 1080 days of preventive custody covered under the span of four detention orders in row from 2019 to March 2024.
ABOUT THE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY Aligarh Muslim University (A.M.U.) is among the oldest Central Universities of India. It was established by Sir
The petitioner was detained in June 2022 based on a FIR registered against him in 2004. However, the petitioner had already been acquitted from the charges levied against him in 2004.
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.