Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Preventive Detention

Preventive Detention

Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 – Section 3(2) – Power to make orders detaining certain persons – The court examined the definitions of “public order” and “Goonda” under the Act, emphasizing the need for activities to adversely affect the community at large to be considered prejudicial to public order – The court upheld the preventive detention order, concluding that the appellant’s activities did indeed affect public order and that the detention was necessary to prevent further harm to society.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NENAVATH BUJJI ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala…

Preventive Detention

(COFEPOSA) – Section 3 – Detention order – Right of detenue to make representation – – No error in the procedure adopted by the respondents as due compliance was made to translate all documents in Bengali apart from persuading the detenue to receive them – In addition, the panchnama was signed by the independent witnesses – Detenue also read the grounds of detention and the relevant documents – Therefore, he was well aware of his right to make a representation – Order of detention is upheld – Appeal dismissed

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARFARAZ ALAM — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Preventive Detention

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) – Sections 3, 9 and 12A – Detention order – Applicability of Section 9 and Section 12A of COFEPOSA – Order of detention had not been revoked on the report of the Advisory Board or before the receipt of the report of Advisory Board or before making a reference to the Advisory Board –

Nov 12, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THANESAR SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…

Preventive Detention

An order of detention under section 3(1) of the Act can only be issued against a detenu to prevent him “from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. “Public order” is defined in the Explanation to section 2(a) of the Act as encompassing situations that cause “harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave wide-spread danger to life or public health” – Order of detention quashed.

Sep 12, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMEENA BEGUM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Preventive Detention

In cases where illegible documents have been supplied to the detenue, a grave prejudice is caused to the detenue in availing his right to send a representation to the relevant authorities, because the detenue, while submitting his representation, does not have clarity on the grounds of his or her detention- no man can defend himself against an unknown threat – Detention order is liable to be set aside – Appeal allowed.

Apr 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAMOD SINGLA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Constitution Preventive Detention

Right to make representation is a fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and supply of the illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by the detaining authority indeed has deprived him in making an effective representation and denial thereof will hold the order of detention illegal and not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law.

Oct 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN @ ANAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…

Narcotics Preventive Detention

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 – Section 3(1) – that the detenu had been released on bail by the Special Court despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, had not been brought to the notice of detaining authority – Detention order quashed – Appeal allowed.

Oct 5, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SUSHANTA KUMAR BANIK — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat and…

Preventive Detention

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 22(4) – National Security Act, 1980 – Section 3(2) – Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 53 – Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 – Section 3 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 274, 275, 308, 420 and 120B -Failure in timely communication of the rejection of representation is a relevant factor for determining the delay that the detenu is protected against under Article 22(5) – Based on the precedents of this Court – Failure of the Central and the State Government to communicate the rejection of the appellant’s representation in a time-bound manner is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention – Order of detention quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

Nov 4, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SARABJEET SINGH MOKHA — Appellant Vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JABAIPUR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw