Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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
Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Pankaj Mithal began his tryst with law in the 1980s.
The Judges were appointed by the President of India in exercise of the power conferred by Article 217(1) and Article 224(1) of the Constitution respectively.
“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”.
It was further pointed out that Greater Kashmir is a popular newspaper and the impugned news articles condemning the DAV School management will obviously leave the public with a prima-facie impression that the DAV Management has acted as if “fence eating the crop”.
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.
The Collegium on 24-04-2024 recommended the appointment of 1 Permanent Judge and extension of term of 2 Additional Judges for Chhattisgarh High Court and extension of term of 1 Additional Judge for the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
In a series of Resolutions dated 12-03-2024, the Collegium recommended appointment of several Permanent Judges and appointment of Judicial Officers and Advocates as Judges.
The High Court observed that terminating contractual appointments is impermissible without providing an opportunity for a hearing, particularly when the termination is grounded in allegations of misconduct that tarnish the employee’s reputation.
“In order to prosecute and punish a witness for offence of perjury, it must be established that the statement was made by him deliberately and consciously, which subsequently, was found to be false as a result of comparing it with other unimpeachable evidence on record”.
The High Court opined that the petitioner has a right of opening of windows on his property even if they are facing towards the house of the respondent.
The High Court was of the view that the respondent Bank’s decision to treat maternity leave as break in service is arbitrary and violates Arts. 14 and 16.
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 High Court observed that the object of Courts is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes which are made in the conduct of the cases.
The detenue specifically alleged that he made a representation against impugned detention order, however, the same was not considered by the detaining authority.
The respondent’s contention that the petitioner himself contributed to the unfortunate electrocution, was rejected by the Court.
If an officer, mechanically, under the guise of prevention of crime and to protect others, opens or extends history sheets, it impacts the right to privacy of not only the individual against whom the order is passed, but also causes harm to other person’s rights.
“It would not be out of place to mention that this Court can even turn the clock back, if the situation warrants such dire measures.” said the Supreme Court while deciding instant matter after elections were already conducted.
The Court answering the question in negative stated that eligibility under the scheme requires for the person to have participated in the National Freedom Struggle.
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.