{"id":43601,"date":"2016-04-13T10:49:10","date_gmt":"2016-04-13T05:19:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=43601"},"modified":"2016-04-13T10:49:10","modified_gmt":"2016-04-13T05:19:10","slug":"2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 28, 2016 Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 22(5), 14, 19 and 21 \u2014 Detention order and its grounds vis-\u00e1-vis order of Advisory Board\/competent authority rejecting representation of detenu: <\/strong>Manner in which said orders should comply with Art. 22. Detention order and its grounds have to be communicated at the earliest as mandated under Art. 22(5). However, in case a representation is made against detention order and Advisory Board\/competent authority rejects said representation, Board\/competent authority is not required to communicate grounds of said rejection to detenu. [Union of India v. Saleena, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_3_SCC_437\">(2016) 3 SCC 437<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Courts, Tribunals and Judiciary \u2014 High Courts \u2014 Appeal \u2014 Intra-court appeal \u2014 Scope:<\/strong> In intra-court appeal on a finding of fact, unless Appellate Bench concludes that findings of Single Judge were perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another or better view is possible, order of Single Judge should not be interfered with, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief. [Narendra &amp; Co. (P) Ltd. v. Workmen, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_3_SCC_340\">(2016) 3 SCC 340<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 408, 406, 407 and Ss. 397 to 401\u2014 Power of Sessions Judge to transfer cases under S. 408: <\/strong>Seeking transfer at the drop of a hat is inconceivable. Order of transfer is not to be passed as matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about proper conduct of trial. Power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to trial. There has to be a real apprehension that there would be miscarriage of justice. [Usmangani Adambhai Vahora v. State of Gujarat, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_3_SCC_370\">(2016) 3 SCC 370<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Electricity Act, 2003 \u2014 Ss. 86(1)(f), 94, 95, 174 and 175 \u2014 Invocation of jurisdiction of State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) under S. 86(1)(f) of 2003 Act:<\/strong> Principles underlying the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, though not the provisions themselves, particularly those underlying Ss. 5 and 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, are applicable to State Electricity Regulatory Commission when it functions as statutory adjudicatory quasi-judicial\/judicial authority in determining all claims or disputes, including those arising out of contract, between licensees and generating companies, either by itself or by referring dispute(s) to arbitration. However, said limitation principles are inapplicable to proceedings before Commission in respect of its other powers or functions which are administrative or regulatory in nature. [A.P. Power Coordination Committee v. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_3_SCC_468\">(2016) 3 SCC 468<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Hindu Law Women\u2019s Rights Act, 1933 (Mysore Act 10 of 1933) \u2014 S. 4(1)(ii) \u2014 Succession:<\/strong> After receiving share in joint family properties pursuant to partition among two brothers, one of them died intestate leaving behind his widow and unmarried daughters. In absence of any male issue, widow alone would succeed to deceased husband\u2019s estate under S. 4(1)(ii). Right of succession of daughters is thereby excluded in view of order of succession prescribed under S. 4(1). Neither S. 8(1)(d) nor S. 10(1)(g) attracted in such case. [L. Gowramma v. Sunanda, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_3_SCC_356\">(2016) 3 SCC 356<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Land Acquisition Act, 1894 \u2014 Ss. 23, 34 and 54:<\/strong> Enhancement of compensation of the acquired land. [Omkar Singh v. State of Haryana, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_3_SCC_364\">(2016) 3 SCC 364<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Land Acquisition and Requisition \u2014 Relief \u2014 Moulding of relief \u2014 Discretion and duty of court:<\/strong> For balance of equities in a situation where landowner(s) is\/are denied return of land (illegally acquired), beneficiary of illegal allotment is permitted to retain same (in part) in larger public interest. Non-destructive exercise of judicial power to save full-fledged educational campus raised at the risk of beneficiary (Educational Society). As in this case, a fullfledged academic campus came up on 55 acres of land. Large number of persons utilising benefit of said infrastructure and facilities provided therein. Said infrastructure provided avenues of employment to many. Host of other such circumstances cannot be overlooked by Court. Hence, out of 55 acres of land which was allotted to beneficiary Society, beneficiary directed to surrender 15 acres of land to Development Authority (MUDA) and in respect of remaining 40 acres out of 55 acres, persons entitled should receive compensation in terms of LA Act. [K.B. Ramachandra Raje v. State of Karnataka, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_3_SCC_422\">(2016) 3 SCC 422<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Mines and Minerals \u2014 Mining lease:<\/strong> As there was new procedure of grant of mining lease only by e-tendering in State of U.P. (for minor minerals) as per High Court\u2019s direction in <em>Nar Narain Mishra<\/em>, (2013) 2 ADJ 166, but impugned interim order of High Court against appellant whose lease for minor minerals was granted\/renewed. Interim order not interfered with and matter directed to be decided on merits by High Court. [Ramakant Dwivedi v. Rafiq Ahmad, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_3_SCC_352\">(2016) 3 SCC 352<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2014 Ss. 52-A and 55:<\/strong> Directions issued for protection of seized narcotics\/contraband against theft, substitution and pilferage. [Union of India v. Mohanlal, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_3_SCC_379\">(2016) 3 SCC 379<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Rent Control and Eviction \u2014 Landlord-tenant relationship \u2014 Landlord \u2014 Concept:<\/strong> Person should be entitled in his own legal right to evict tenant from premises and retain its control, hold and use of premise for himself. Concept under rent control law is distinct from ownership in title suit. [Boorugu Mahadev &amp; Sons v. Sirigiri Narasing Rao, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_3_SCC_343\">(2016) 3 SCC 343<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Right to Information Act, 2005 \u2014 S. 8(1)(e) \u2014 Exemption for information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship:<\/strong> Examiner\u2019s identity cannot be revealed to information seeker. There is a fiduciary relationship between examiner and PSC. Disclosure of identity of examiners is in the least interest of the general public. It would rather give rise to dire consequences and would lead to public unrest and confusion. [Kerala Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_3_SCC_417\">(2016) 3 SCC 417<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 22(5), 14, 19 and 21 \u2014 Detention order and its grounds vis-\u00e1-vis order of Advisory Board\/competent authority <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":102451,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43601","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 28, 2016 Part 3 | SCC Times<\/title>\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\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 28, 2016 Part 3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 22(5), 14, 19 and 21 \u2014 Detention order and its grounds vis-\u00e1-vis order of Advisory Board\/competent authority\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/\" \/>\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=\"2016-04-13T05:19:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\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\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/\",\"name\":\"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 28, 2016 Part 3 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-04-13T05:19:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 28, 2016 Part 3\"}]},{\"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 28, 2016 Part 3 | SCC Times","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\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 28, 2016 Part 3","og_description":"Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 22(5), 14, 19 and 21 \u2014 Detention order and its grounds vis-\u00e1-vis order of Advisory Board\/competent authority","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-04-13T05:19:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/","name":"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 28, 2016 Part 3 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","datePublished":"2016-04-13T05:19:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/13\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-28-2016-part-3\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 28, 2016 Part 3"}]},{"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":234716,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/24\/jk-hc-failure-to-cite-in-detention-order-about-detenues-right-to-make-representation-amounts-to-infraction-of-right-guaranteed-under-art-225-and-s-13-of-jk-public-safety-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":43601,"position":0},"title":"J&#038;K HC | Failure to cite in detention order about detenue\u2019s right to make representation amounts to infraction of right guaranteed under Art. 22(5) and S. 13 of J&#038;K Public Safety Act","author":"Editor","date":"August 24, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. quashed the detention order and allowed the petition as the Detaining Authority had failed to mention in the detention order about the petitioner\u2019s right to make representation. In the present appeal, Wajid Haseeb, counsel for petitioner vehemently opposed the detention order\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":330730,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/13\/failure-furnishing-documents-delay-deciding-detenu-representation-violates-art-225\/","url_meta":{"origin":43601,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Failure in furnishing documents &amp; delay in deciding detenu\u2019s representation violates Art. 22(5)\u2019: SC quashes detention order under COFEPOSA","author":"Editor","date":"September 13, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIn the matters pertaining to personal liberty of the citizens, the Authorities are enjoined with a constitutional obligation to decide the representation with utmost expedition. Each day\u2019s delay matters in such a case.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"detention order under COFEPOSA","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/detention-order-under-COFEPOSA.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/detention-order-under-COFEPOSA.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/detention-order-under-COFEPOSA.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/detention-order-under-COFEPOSA.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214462,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/08\/j-detenu-to-be-released\/","url_meta":{"origin":43601,"position":2},"title":"J&#038;K HC | Failure to communicate ground of detention to detenu is denial of Constitutional right under Art. 22(5); detenu to be released","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 8, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu & Kashmir High Court: This Habeas Corpus petition was filed before the Bench of Ali Mohammad Magrey, J., for quashing of a detention order passed by District Magistrate by which detenu was detained. Mir Shafaqat Hussain, learned counsel on behalf of petitioner submitted that detenu can make a representation\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":236917,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/08\/j-writ-petition-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":43601,"position":3},"title":"J&#038;K HC | &#8216;Subjective satisfaction of a detaining authority to detain a person is not open to objective assessment by a Court\u02bc; Writ Petition dismissed\u00a0","author":"Editor","date":"October 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Tashi Rabstan, J., while dismissing a criminal writ petition seeking to challenge the grounds preferred for detention, said, \u201cA Court is not a proper forum to scrutinize the merits of administrative decision to detain a person.\u201d Brief Facts Petitioner in the instant case was arrested\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":256613,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/national-security-act-delay-in-considering-representation-and-non-communication-of-rejection-strikes-at-the-heart-of-fundamental-rights-of-detenu-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":43601,"position":4},"title":"National Security Act| Delay in considering representation; non-communication of rejection strike at the heart of fundamental rights of detenu: SC","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 1, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cPreventive detention in independent India is to be exercised with utmost regard to constitutional safeguards.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":225446,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/11\/jk-hc-high-court-does-not-sit-in-appeal-over-decision-of-detaining-authority-and-cannot-substitute-its-own-opinion-over-that-of-detaining-authority-when-grounds-of-detention-are-precise-and-releva\/","url_meta":{"origin":43601,"position":5},"title":"J&#038;K HC | HC does not sit in appeal over decision of detaining authority and cannot substitute its own opinion, when grounds of detention are precise &#038; relevant","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 11, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Tashi Rabstan J., in a matter relating to preventive detention declined to provide opinion over that of detaining authority and reiterated that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man but to prevent from any further acts. The present case relates to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43601","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43601"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43601\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/102451"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}