Calcutta High Court acknowledged the need for certain restrictions to maintain law and order during an international event.
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.
The Court also revisited the difference between disturbances relatable to ‘law and order’ and disturbances caused to ‘public order’ and said that it is trite that breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder.
On 19-5-2023, the Ministry of Law and Justice notified the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 giving back
In the spirit of cooperative federalism, the Union must exercise its powers within the boundaries created by the Constitution. NCTD, having a sui generis federal model, must be allowed to function in the domain charted for it by the Constitution. The Union and NCTD share a unique federal relationship. It does not mean that NCTD is subsumed in the unit of the Union merely because it is not a “State”.
Supreme Court said that NCTD like other states also represents the representative form of government, the involvement of Union of India in the administration of NCTD is limited by Constitution provisions and any further expansion will be contrary to the constitutional scheme of governance.
Gujarat High Court: Rajendra M. Sareen, J. allowed a petition which was directed against the detention order passed by respondent–detaining authority in
Supreme Court: In a case where the detenu was accused of committing a series of criminal offences from October, 2017 to December,
Telangana High Court: The Division Bench of A. Rajasheker Reddy and Dr Shameem Akhter, JJ., while addressing the matter has shed some
Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has held that the true test of a valid FIR is only whether
“Indeed the right to protest is part of a fundamental right and can as a matter of fact, be exercised subject to public order.”
“In a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy and, in fact, repudiates the right to equality.”
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Puneet Gupta, J. dismissed the writ petition and set aside the detention order on the grounds that
Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, Shri Nityanand Rai, in a written reply to a question regarding details on mob lynching
Gujarat High Court: A Bench of S.H. Vora, J. allowed the special leave petition and quashed the impugned order of detention by
Gujarat High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of S.H. Vora, J., allowed a petition against the detention orders passed under Gujarat
Punjab and Haryana High Court: The order denying parole to the petitioner (convict) based on the report of the District Magistrate was
Allahabad High Court: The High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition brought before it in a case of cow slaughter in front
High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana: The detention of one Chirraboina Krishna Yadav under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Supreme Court: In the case where the detenu was detained under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders,