Category: 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.

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…

(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

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…

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3, 9 and 12A – Detention order – Applicability of Section 9 and Section 12A of COFEPOSA – Order of detention had not been revoked on the report of the Advisory Board or before the receipt of the report of Advisory Board or before making a reference to the Advisory Board –

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…

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.

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…

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.

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…

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.

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…

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.

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…

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.

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

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.