Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Public order cannot be invoked merely because bovine animals were allegedly transported without permission; where the detenue is not informed of his right to represent before the detaining authority, preventive detention becomes constitutionally unsustainable.
The High Court held that where ordinary criminal law provides adequate remedies, the State cannot bypass judicial scrutiny and directly invoke preventive detention merely because the accused has secured bail or because prosecution under ordinary law may involve procedural rigours.
“The right to make a representation implies that the person detained must be informed of his right to make a representation to the authority that has made the order of detention at the time when he is served with the grounds of detention so as to enable him to make such a representation and the failure to do so results in denial of the right to make representation and renders the order invalid.”
“The Superintendent of Police’s proposal and source report showed that the petitioner was still involved in the activities of drug trafficking and there was a live link, however, the record was to the contrary because no FIR was lodged after March 2024 till the passing of detention order.”
“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.”
“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.”
The apprehension of the Detaining Authority was that since the alleged sand smuggler had been allegedly terrifying the community and creating obstacles in public order, he would engage in similar activities in future as well. However, the Court stated that such is not the criteria for a person to be detained as a ‘sand smuggler.’
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 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.
“Section 60(4) of Bihar VAT Act, 2005 enables a seizure of goods along with the carrier if the authority suspects the transport to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 60(2).”
Madras High Court: A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeus corpus
Gujarat High Court: Paresh Upadhyay, J., allowed a petition which was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Puneet Gupta, J., while setting aside the detention order, reiterated that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Tashi Rabstan, J., while dismissing a criminal writ petition seeking to challenge the grounds preferred for detention,
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. quashed the detention order and allowed the petition as the Detaining Authority had
No. F.2/1/88-HP-II/ Pt.-I/775-78.—Whereas the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is satisfied that it is necessary to do so;
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Tashi Rabstan J., in a matter relating to preventive detention declined to provide opinion over that of
Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. allowed the application filed by the petitioner to free him from detention. The
Jammu & Kashmir High Court: This Habeas Corpus petition was filed before the Bench of Ali Mohammad Magrey, J., for quashing of
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Rashid Ali Dar, J., allowed the petition which challenged the order of