Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13401 (5.40 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State Of Bihar And Others on 7 September, 1965

Additional District Magistrate, ... vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1976

The observations in the cases referred to above show that the validity of the detention orders could be assailed despite the Presidential orders of: 1962 and 1974 under article 359 in case the right relied upon was not one covered by these Presidential orders. The protection afforded by those Presidential orders was not absolute, it Was conditional and confined to ruling out the challenge to detention orders and other actions taken under the provisions mentioned in those Presidential orders on the score of contravention of the articles specified in those orders. If the detention of a detenu was not in accordance with the provisions mentioned in the Presidential orders, the Presidential orders did not have the effect of affording protection to the detention order and it was permissible to challenge the validity of the detention on the ground that it had not been made under the specified provisions but in contravention of those provisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 248 - Cited by 19 - A N Ray - Full Document

Sangeetha vs The Secretary To Government on 6 January, 2025

“12. The distinction between a disturbance to law and order and a disturbance to public order has been clearly settled by a Constitution Bench in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740. The Court has held that every disorder does not meet the threshold of a disturbance to public order, unless it affects the community at large. The Constitution Bench held:
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Kamalveer Singh vs Adhikshak Janpad Karagar And 3 Others on 28 February, 2024

20. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 SC 740 has held that public order was set to embrace more of the community than just the law and order of the area. Public order is an even tempo of the life of a community taking the country as a whole or even a specific locality. Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from the acts directed against the individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility. In that judgment, it has been stated that degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order or whether there was a problem of maintenance of public order. In the instant case, we find that the event of murdering of Anuj Chaudhary had happened on 10.08.2023; the case was registered as Case Crime No. 598 of 2023 under Section 302/307 of IPC and only Amit Kumar, Pushpendra, Aniket and Prabhaker were the named assailants. The F.I.R. had further mentioned about certain unknown assailants. The petitioner, however, was involved only when the brother-in-law of the deceased had mentioned the name of the petitioner in a letter written to the Superintendent of Police on 29.08.2023 and thereafter the petitioner was arrested on 01.11.2023 and that too in a conspiratorial role. Further we find that under the Arms Act, the crime of which was numbered as Case Crime No. 818 of 2023, the petitioner was jailed on 07.11.2023 and with regard to the Gangster's Act, the petitioner's arrest took place on 28.11.2023. The grounds of detention have only mentioned that the petitioner's relatives, after the arrest of the petitioner in Case Crime No. 598 of 2023 on 01.11.2023, had moved a bail application on 04.11.2023. No ground in the "Grounds of Detention" has been mentioned that any bail was moved with regard to the Arms Act and the Gangsters Act. It may be mentioned over here that the bail in the Gangsters Act cannot be obtained without a service of notice on the Public Prosecutor and without the Court being satisfied that the accused would be on the culmination of trial, acquitted.
Allahabad High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - S Varma - Full Document

Manohar Ram vs State on 29 July, 2010

Learned counsel contents that recovery of bag may have been from below plants or anywhere else but the petitioner has no relation whatsoever with it - contends that relation of petitioner with this bag is not proved and it cannot be safely inferred that it was only the petitioner who possessing the bag did threw it away. Argued that even presence of petitioner anywhere around that place cannot be inferred. Vehemently submits that (i) Constables could not have seen and identified, atleast very definitely person from such a long distance particularly when concerned was riding on cycle (ii) witnesses of recovery do not support - in any way do not incriminate accused (iii) if prior information was, as stated, then no reason to direct only to constables for search and if so direction was, it was particularly directing arrest (iv) shoes and cycle not proved to be of petitioner - nowhere connected to accused and there is no iota of evidence to show that this was in possession of accused - taken on hire or otherwise possessed by petitioner not proved - no necessity or 3 S.B. Criminal Revision No. 46/1993 (Manohar Ram Vs. State & Ors.) occasion to leave shoes with cycle that too fastened in spring of carrier (v) no specimen seal used - is proved to have been prepared on the same day and no evidence for sending same to laboratory. Argued that no worth evidence to show any connection of seized substance to accused. In support of contention cited is 1992 Crl.L.R. Raj. 536 reported for necessity of seal impression.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Additional District Magistrate, ... vs Shivakant Shukla on 28 April, 1976

385. The case was also decided on a consideration of evidence on the ground that there was an area of enquiry opened up by the grounds given for entry by the Court. I do not know how any decision could have been given in Dr. Lohia's case if grounds of detention were not found to be bad on the very face of the order stating those grounds, or, it there was no door left open for judicial scrutiny due to a provision such as Section 16A(9) of the Act before Us. Thus, the law considered and applied in Dr. Lohitfs case was different from the law we have to apply under a different set of circumstances as explained above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 262 - Cited by 176 - A N Ray - Full Document

M/S.Sun Tv Network Ltd vs Union Of India on 14 June, 2016

In Dr Lohia v. State of Bihar [1966 SCR 709 = AIR 1966 SC 740 = 1966(2) SCJ 549 = 1969(1) SCC 10] this Court explained the difference between the three concepts of law and order, public order and the security of the State and fictionally drew three concentric circles, the largest representing law and order, the next representing public order and the smallest representing security of the State. Every infraction of law must necessarily affect order, but an act affecting law and order may not necessarily also affect the public order. Likewise, an act may affect public order, but not necessarily the security of the State. These observations clearly bring out the distinction between each of the three concepts and the three imaginary concentric circles help to delinate the respective areas of the three concepts.
Madras High Court Cites 89 - Cited by 0 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

Pramod Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 16 July, 2021

"As observed by Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) in Dr. Ram Manohar - Lohia v. State of Bihar & Ors. one has to imagine three concentric circles, in order to understand the meaning and import of the above expressions. 'Law and order' represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing "public order" and the smallest circle represents "security of State". It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of State. It is in view of the above distinction, the Act defines the expressions "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State" and "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" separately.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mehraj Din Malik vs Union Territory Of J&K Through Its ... on 27 April, 2026

65. As hereinbefore observed, there lies a thin theoretic distinction between the terms "law and order" and the "public disorder" which most often are used interchangeably but the practical implications of the two concepts are all together different. As has been held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar and ors, 1966 SCR (1) 709, that contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to effect public order, it must effect the community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus, not necessarily sufficient for action under the preventive laws. Thus, irrespective of the proximity or live link in terms of time gap between the alleged last incident of 06.09.2025 and the necessity for passing of the impugned detention order, the alleged activities of the petitioner/detenu which present a law and order situation to be taken care of under normal law cannot warrant and justify the preventive detention on the pretext of the "public disorder".
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next