Supreme Court of India Judgements

47050 Judgements hosted as on 18/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Preventive Detention

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…

Preventive Detention

Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 – Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 13 – Detention – Delegation of powers to the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police to detain a person – Once the order of detention is confirmed by the State Government, maximum period for which a detenu shall be detained cannot exceed 12 months from the date of detention.

Nov 13, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BALU S/O WAMAN PATOLE — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and M. R. Shah, JJ.…

Preventive Detention

Criminal Law–Detention–Writ petition before High Court to quash the order of detention–Orders were restrained to be enforced–Became infructuous by lapse of time–Writ was allowed with the observation that the respondents will be at liberty to pass any fresh order if so required to take appropriate action thereafter in accordance with law–Order of High Court set aside–The proper order required to be passed was to call upon the respondent first to surrender pursuant to detention order

Dec 27, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 49 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. of 2008 (Arising…

You missed

Service

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 — Resistance and Obstruction to Execution of Decree for Possession — Adjudication of rights of obstructionists — Where transferees pendente lite obstruct execution of a decree for possession, the Executing Court must adjudicate the claim; if the obstructionist is found to be a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is limited to this fact, and such a transferee has no right to resist execution of the decree — The remedy for removal of obstruction is by application under Order 21 Rule 97 by the decree holder, followed by adjudication under Rule 98-101 (Maharashtra Amendment) which bars a separate suit. (Paras 53, 54, 55, 59, 65)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Administrative Law — Competence of authorities — State Governments lack legislative competence to prescribe additional experience as an essential qualification for Drug Inspectors when the Central Government has already occupied the field.

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw