Judgments - Preventive Detention
JASEELA SHAJI VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA
SHABNA ABDULLA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA
SARFARAZ ALAM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
AMEENA BEGUM VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
PRAMOD SINGLA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. VERSUS BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN @ ANAND & ANR.
Sushanta Kumar Banik Versus State of Tripura & Ors.
Ranveer @ Raman versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Gangaram Prajapati vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law laid down - 1. The order of preventive detention for its sustainability needs to satisfy compliance of the procedural mandate of Section 3(3) of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 obliging the District Magistrate, who passes the order of preventive detention to forthwith report to the State Government. 2. The expression “forthwith” used in Section 3(3) of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 means immediately without any unnecessary unexplained Full Judgment
Chandra Prakash @ Tinku Pandey Vs. The State of M.P. & Others.
Sarabjeet Singh Mokha Versus The District Magistrate, Jabalpur & Ors.
Dilip Sisodia vs. State of M.P. and others
Law laid down - 1. Section 3 of National Security Act, 1980 (NSA Act) – Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India – Challenge to the order of detention at preexecution stage – Scope is limited and can be called in question if (i) that the impugned order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed, (ii) that it is sought to be executed against the wrong person, (iii) that it is Full Judgment
Sarabjeet Singh Mokha Vs. The District Magistrate, Jabalpur & Ors.
Law laid down - 1. Detention order – based on stale incident – the detention order dated 11.05.2021 refers an old case of 2004 from which petitioner has been admittedly acquitted. There is no live nexus between the incident of 2004 and action for which detention order is passed. To this extent, the detention order is bad in law. 2. Preventive detention laws – background – law of preventive detention is recognized and authorized by Constitution because Constitution makers visualized that there Full Judgment
BANKA SNEHA SHEELA VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
Rajeev Kumar Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - If the detenu is in custody at the time of passing the detention order then it is necessary for the Detaining Authority to mention this fact in the detention order and also consider the prospects of release of the detenu on bail and apprehension that the detenu would indulge in prejudicial activities in case of his release on bail. The non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority or nonrecording of satisfaction in this regard vitiates the detention Full Judgment
Kamleshwar Dixit vs. State of M.P. and others
Law laid down - 1) Section 3 - NSA Act, 1980- The facts situation and “pressures of the day” are relevant factors for examining the validity of a detention order. In a pandemic-like situation, one incident of black marketing of an essential drug can be sufficient to invoke the detention law. 2) Detention order – Indisputably, para 4 of the detention order is erroneously pasted from elsewhere. There is no basis of the said para – The Doctrine of Severability was applied Full Judgment
Yatindra Verma Vs. State of MP & Ors.
Law laid down - (1) Article 22(5) of Constitution of India - The right of detenu to represent against detention order is a valuable and constitutional right, violation of which can make the order of detention as illegal. (2) Constitution of India - Preventive Detention – is duly recognized in our constitutional scheme. The Constituent Assembly composed of politicians, statesman, lawyers and social workers who had experienced the imprisonment owing solely to their political beliefs resolved to put Article 22, Clause 3 Full Judgment
Kamal Khare Vs. The State of M.P. and others
Kalla alias Surendra Jat Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down:- 1. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. An act, affecting public order may have ramifications over law and order and security of the State at the same time. 2. Liberty of an individual is to be reconciled with collective interest of the community so that Public Order, Social Peace and overall Development of the Area may not be sacrificed at the altar of Lawlessness, Misgovernance and Private Retribution. 3. Crime and Disorder are strongly interrelated, therefore, Broken Full Judgment