Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“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.”
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.’
“Communication means imparting to the petitioner sufficient and effective knowledge of the facts and circumstances on which the order of detention is passed and such communication in such language which the petitioner understands.”
The High Court reiterated precedents highlighting that the detaining authority must not make undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, and that Daily Diary Reports must not be vague and bereft of necessary details.
“The satisfaction of the authorities based on conduct must precede action for prevention based on subjective satisfaction.”
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.
The District Collector passed a detention order under the National Security Act, 1980 against the accused, Pravesh Shukla accused of Sidhi Urination incident.
Supreme Court: In a case where a detenu was provided with the illegible copy of documents relating to his detention, the bench
Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench of T. S. Sivagnanam and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, JJ., dismissed an appeal and connected application which was
Gujarat High Court: Rajendra M. Sareen, J. allowed a petition which was directed against the detention order passed by respondent–detaining authority in
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Sanjeev Kumar, J. heard the instant petition against the impugned order passed by District Magistrate (the detaining
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Sanjeev Kumar, J., heard the instant petition presented by the wife of the Petitioner to assail his
Allahabad High Court: The Full Bench of Sanjay Yadav, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Siddhartha Varma, JJ., in a very significant ruling expressed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Puneet Gupta, J., while setting aside the detention order, reiterated that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority
Gujarat High Court: A.C. Rao, J., dismissed a petition which was filed seeking to challenge the legality and validity of the threatening
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Puneet Gupta, J. detention order quashed and non-application of mind by the detaining authority in the present
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of N. Kirubakaran and V. Velumani, JJ., while addressing the present petition observed that, “Indian Democracy
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Rashid Ali Dar, J. set aside the detention order passed by respondent 2-District Magistrate, Baramulla and ordered
“Viewing Hindi or English as the only language does not seem to be the Constitutional mandate and it is with this end
Manipur High Court: A Bench of Lanusungkum Jamir and Kh. Nobin Singh, JJ., released Kishorchandra Wangkhem, the 39-year old journalist who was detained