Supreme Court of India Judgements

46054 Judgements hosted as on 15/11/2023 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Preventive Detention

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3, 9 and 12A – Detention order – Applicability of Section 9 and Section 12A of COFEPOSA – Order of detention had not been revoked on the report of the Advisory Board or before the receipt of the report of Advisory Board or before making a reference to the Advisory Board –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…

Preventive Detention

Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing of the Detention Orders HELD that once the detention order has been made by any of the authorities competent to detain in terms of Section 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act, the representation to seek revocation of the detention order can be considered and decided by the Detaining Authority dehors the decision of the Advisory Board and the acceptance of recommendation by the appropriate Government. The consideration for revocation of adetention order is limited to examining whether the order conforms with the provisions of law whereas the recommendation of the Advisory Board

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ANKIT ASHOK JALAN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Hemant Gupta,…

Preventive Detention

Detention Order Cannot Be Based On ‘Stale & Irrelevant’ Incidents HELD The satisfaction to be arrived at by the detaining authority must not be based on irrelevant or invalid grounds. It must be arrived at on the basis of relevant material; material which is not stale and has a live link with the satisfaction of the detaining authority.

Dec 22, 2019 sclaw

Detention Order Cannot Be Based On ‘Stale & Irrelevant’ Incidents: SC   LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 21 Dec 2019 2:27 PM The Supreme Court has observed that stale and irrelevant incidents cannot…

You missed

I P C

(CrPC) – Sections 482, 378 and 407 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 448, 454 and 380 – Theft – Discharge application – When coupled with the fact that the police did not find any offences having been made out against the appellants under Sections 454 and 380, IPC, the case against the appellants under Section 448, IPC finds itself on shaky ground – There is no suspicion, much less strong or grave suspicion that the appellants are guilty of the offence alleged

Nov 29, 2023 sclaw
Service

Promotion by selection through LDCE vis-à-vis competitive examination is a facility or a chance given for out of their promotion without waiting for the normal course of promotion – It in effect is selection through competitive examination within the limited category of candidates and cannot be equated with normal promotion – This being the position, the argument that regular promotion criteria had to be applied with regard to medical fitness even in the matter of selection through LDCE is not acceptable

Nov 29, 2023 sclaw
Education

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Section 23(1) – Appointment of teachers for Class I to VIII – Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point, it can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed – An authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/executive instructions in contravention of the statutory rules

Nov 29, 2023 sclaw
I P C

(IPC) – Sections 307, 323 and 324 – Attempt to murder – Intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances – the injuries on complainant and his mother have been found to be simple in nature, which is an additional point in the appellants’ favour – Only offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC can be made out – Conviction under Section 307, IPC is unsustainable

Nov 29, 2023 sclaw