{"id":299241,"date":"2023-08-13T13:00:55","date_gmt":"2023-08-13T07:30:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=299241"},"modified":"2023-08-12T18:30:36","modified_gmt":"2023-08-12T13:00:36","slug":"sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/","title":{"rendered":"Never Reported Judgment | When Supreme Court upheld validity of detention for more than three months under Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 [(1952) 1 SCC 203]"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court<\/span>: In a case wherein the validity of orders passed by the District Magistrate of Amritsar (‘DM') on 6-12-1950 and on 28-3-1951 was challenged, the 3-Judges Bench of Fazl Ali<\/span>*, B.K. Mukherjea, and Vivian Bose, JJ., opined that the detention order was in conformity with the provisions of Section 12<\/a> of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950<\/a> (‘the Act') and the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951 (‘Amendment Act') and accordingly dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

In the instant case, the DM issued an order on 04-08-1950 for the arrest of the petitioner, wherein it was stated that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to arrest and detain him.<\/p>\n

The petitioner was arrested on 4-11-1950, and the grounds of detention were served on him on the 16-11-1950. Subsequently, on 16-11-1950, the DM issued an order under Section 4 of the Act, directing the petitioner to be committed to police custody till 13-2-1951.<\/p>\n

On 6-12-1950, his detention was extended till 31-3-1951, and again on 8-2-1951, an order was passed by the DM which directed the petitioner to be committed to the custody of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, for being kept in jail from 10-02-1951 until 31-3-1951.<\/p>\n

Subsequently, on 28-3-1951, the DM issued an order extending the period of detention of the petitioner till further orders. Thereafter, the petitioner’s case was referred to the Advisory Board under the Amendment Act, and on the report of that Board, his detention was confirmed.<\/p>\n

Thus, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner to challenge the validity of the orders passed by the DM on 6-12-1950 and on 28-3-1951.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that the petitioner's contention that the DM was not authorised to order the petitioner’s detention for more than three months, did not take note of the fact that under Section 12 of the Act, persons who were found to be acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order could be detained for more than 3 months without their cases being referred to the Advisory Board.<\/p>\n

Further, with regard to the petitioner's contention that the DM had no power to extend the period of detention beyond 31-3-1951, vide Order dated 28-03-1951, the Supreme Court opined that the Order in question merely amounted to direct the petitioner to be detained till further orders. The Supreme Court further opined that the word “extended” in the Order had no other meaning than that the petitioner’s detention would continue under the new Amendment Act and such order was in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 of the Amendment Act, which provided that “every order in force at the commencement of the Amendment Act, shall continue in force and shall have effect as if it had been made under the Act as amended by the Amendment Act”. Thus, the Supreme Court held that after this order, the petitioner's case was referred to the Advisory Board as provided in the Amendment Act, and the procedure established by law was duly complied with.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that the petitioner's contention that the order of 4-08-1950 was not an order of detention and had been wrongly treated, had no substance. The Supreme Court opined that the Order recited that it was necessary to arrest and detain the petitioner, and he was directed to be arrested for the purpose of being detained. The petitioner was actually detained as soon as he was arrested by the force of the Order. In any event the Order of detention of 28-3-1951, which was passed under the Amendment Act was not liable to be questioned, and the present detention of the petitioner could not be held to be illegal.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n

[Prem Singh v. State of Punjab, (1952) 1 SCC 203<\/a>, decided on 26-02-1952<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Note: National Security Act, 1980<\/a><\/p>\n

The reference to Advisory Boards is covered under Section 10<\/a> of the National Security Act, 1980<\/a> (‘NSA') as the Preventive Detention Act, 1950<\/a> has now been repealed. Section 13 of the NSA specifies that the maximum period of detention can be twelve months from the date of detention. Further, Section 3 of the NSA specifies about the power to make orders detaining certain persons and Section 8 of the NSA mentions grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order.<\/p>\n

*Judgment by- Justice Fazl Ali<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Petitioners: Raghbir Singh (Amicus Curiae) Senior Advocate<\/p>\n

For the Respondents: Jindra Lal, Advocate<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“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.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":299257,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,58675],"tags":[45489,58925,3117,60244,43515,5363,60243],"class_list":["post-299241","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-scc-never-reported-judgments-supreme-court","tag-advisory-board","tag-never-reported-judgment","tag-Preventive_Detention","tag-preventive-detention-act","tag-section-12","tag-supreme-court","tag-validity-of-detention-order"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court's Never Reported Judgement on Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Supreme Court opined that the detention order was in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and the Amendment Act.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment | When Supreme Court upheld validity of detention for more than three months under Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 [(1952) 1 SCC 203]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court opined that the detention order was in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and the Amendment Act.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-08-13T07:30:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/section-12-preventive-detention-act-1950.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment | When Supreme Court upheld validity of detention for more than three months under Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 [(1952) 1 SCC 203]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgement on Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/section-12-preventive-detention-act-1950.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-08-13T07:30:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"The Supreme Court opined that the detention order was in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and the Amendment Act.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/section-12-preventive-detention-act-1950.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/section-12-preventive-detention-act-1950.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"section 12 preventive detention act 1950\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Never Reported Judgment | When Supreme Court upheld validity of detention for more than three months under Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 [(1952) 1 SCC 203]\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgement on Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 | SCC Blog","description":"The Supreme Court opined that the detention order was in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and the Amendment Act.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Never Reported Judgment | When Supreme Court upheld validity of detention for more than three months under Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 [(1952) 1 SCC 203]","og_description":"The Supreme Court opined that the detention order was in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and the Amendment Act.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-08-13T07:30:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/section-12-preventive-detention-act-1950.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Never Reported Judgment | When Supreme Court upheld validity of detention for more than three months under Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 [(1952) 1 SCC 203]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/","name":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgement on Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/section-12-preventive-detention-act-1950.webp","datePublished":"2023-08-13T07:30:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"The Supreme Court opined that the detention order was in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and the Amendment Act.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/section-12-preventive-detention-act-1950.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/section-12-preventive-detention-act-1950.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"section 12 preventive detention act 1950"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/13\/sc-upholds-validity-of-detention-for-more-than-three-months-u-s12-preventive-detention-act-1950\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Never Reported Judgment | When Supreme Court upheld validity of detention for more than three months under Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 [(1952) 1 SCC 203]"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/section-12-preventive-detention-act-1950.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":305471,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/22\/sc-when-41-verdict-refused-to-release-a-man-detained-under-preventive-detention-act-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":299241,"position":0},"title":"Never Reported Judgment| When in a 4:1 verdict, SC refused to release man detained under Preventive Detention Act; Justice M.C. Mahajan dissented [(1952) 1 SCC 769]","author":"Editor","date":"October 22, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"preventive detention grounds of detention ambiguous","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/preventive-detention-grounds-of-detention-ambiguous.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/preventive-detention-grounds-of-detention-ambiguous.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/preventive-detention-grounds-of-detention-ambiguous.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/preventive-detention-grounds-of-detention-ambiguous.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214835,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/j-detention-order-quashed\/","url_meta":{"origin":299241,"position":1},"title":"J&K HC | Preventive detention order when accused already in custody cuts down the roots of State Act affecting the course of legal procedure; detention order quashed","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 18, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu & Kashmir High Court: In this petition filed before Rashid Ali Dar, J., an order passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla was challenged whereby detenu was ordered to be taken into preventive custody under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act. Petitioner\u2019s custody in the police for the offences\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":245760,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/19\/law-of-preventive-detention\/","url_meta":{"origin":299241,"position":2},"title":"MP HC | Law of preventive detention is an exception to fundamental right to personal liberty under Art. 21 of Constitution and therefore has to be strictly construed; Court allows petition challenging preventive detention","author":"Editor","date":"March 19, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Sheel Nagu and Anand Pathak, JJ., allowed a petition which was filed challenging the order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate detaining the petitioner for a period of three months by invoking the provisions of Section 3(3) of the National\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":300904,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/sc-explains-tests-for-deciding-legality-of-preventive-detention-orders-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":299241,"position":3},"title":"Supreme Court lays down tests for deciding legality of preventive detention orders","author":"Editor","date":"September 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court also revisited the difference between disturbances relatable to \u2018law and order\u2019 and disturbances caused to \u2018public order\u2019 and said that it is trite that breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"legality of preventive detention orders","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/legality-of-preventive-detention-orders.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/legality-of-preventive-detention-orders.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/legality-of-preventive-detention-orders.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/legality-of-preventive-detention-orders.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273151,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/06\/jk-and-ladakh-hc-number-of-acts-not-to-be-determined-for-detention-of-an-individual-but-impact-of-the-acts-preventive-detention\/","url_meta":{"origin":299241,"position":4},"title":"J&K and Ladakh HC| Number of acts not to be determined for detention of an individual, but impact of the act(s) [Preventive Detention]","author":"Editor","date":"September 6, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J. dismissed a petition which was filed assailing the detention order in terms of Section (3) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (\u2018NDPS Act\u2019) issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir (\u2018Detaining\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":198828,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/21\/section-34-of-national-security-act-1980-does-not-allow-laxity-in-reporting-the-detention-to-the-state-government-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":299241,"position":5},"title":"Section 3(4) of National Security Act, 1980 does not allow laxity in reporting the detention to the State Government: SC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar and Dr DY Chandrachud JJ., allowed an appeal by setting aside the order of the Manipur High Court. The present matter dealt with the essence of Section 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980, specifically the meaning of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299241","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=299241"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299241\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/299257"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=299241"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=299241"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=299241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}