Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.22 seconds)Nissar Ahmad Bhat vs State Of J&K; & Others on 11 September, 2013
v. Government of Karnataka [AIR 2009 SC 2184];
G. M. Shah v. State of J&K (1980) 1 SCC 132; Talib Hussain v.
State of J&K & ors 2009 (II) SLJ 849; Nissar Ahmad Bhat v. State
& ors 2014 (III) SLJ 1047; Shahmali v. State and others 2010 (1)
SLJ 56; Dilawar Magray v. State of J&K & ors 2010 (II) SLJ 696;
and Sajad Ahmad Khan v. State & ors 2010 (II) SLJ 743.
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Santosh Shankar Acharya on 1 August, 2000
The detenu has been kept guessing about the facts and events that
weighed with detaining authority and prompted detaining authority to
record subjective satisfaction regarding sufficiency of the material to
warrant preventive detention of detenu. These are only few instances
to illustrate that grounds of detention are vague and ambiguous and
bound to keep detenu guessing about what really was intended to be
conveyed by detaining authority. It is well settled law that even where
one of grounds relied upon by Detaining Authority to order detention is
vague and ambiguous, Constitutional and Statutory right of detenu to
make an effective representation against his detention are taken to
have been violated. Reference in this regard may be made to law laid
down in State of Maharashtra & ors v. Santosh Shankar Acharya
[AIR 2000 SC 2504]; Chaju Ram v. State of J&K [AIR 1971 SC
263]; Dr.Ram Krishan v. The State of Delhi & ors. [AIR 1953 SC
318]; Mohd Yousuf Rather v. State of J&K [AIR 1979 SC 1925];
and Ghulam Nabi Shah v. State of J&K & ors. [2005(I) SLJ 251].
Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs B.K. Jha & Anr on 9 February, 1987
14. Law on the subject was succinctly laid down by the Apex Court
in Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B. K. Jha and another (1987
2 SCC 22) in following words:
Union Of India vs Ranu Bhandari on 16 September, 2008
It is only after
detenu has all said material available, that he can make an effort to
convince the Detaining Authority and thereafter Government that their
apprehension as regards his activities are baseless and misplaced. If
the detenu is not supplied material, on which detention order is based,
he cannot be in a position to make an effective representation against
his detention order. The failure on the part of detaining authority to
supply material relied at the time of making detention order to detenu,
renders detention order illegal and unsustainable. While holding so, I
draw support from law laid down in Thahira Haris case (supra);
Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari [2008, Cr. L. J. 4567]; Dhannajoy
Dass v. District Magistrate [AIR, 1982 SC 1315]; Sofia Ghulam
Mohammad Bam v. State of Maharashtra &ors [AIR, 1999, SC
3051]; and Syed Aasiya Indrabi v. State of J&K &ors [2009 (I)
S.L.J 219]; and Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari (2008 Cr. L. J.
4567);
Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 13 in The Jammu And Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj vs The State Of Delhi And Others on 16 April, 1953
In addition to above, the Supreme Court in Dr. Ram Krishan
Bhardwaj v. The State of Delhi and Ors.[1953 SCR 708], while
interpreting Article 22(5) of the Constitution, observed as under:
Rekha vs The Secretary, Public (Sc) Department ... on 8 October, 2007
11. The preventive detention law makes room for detention of a
person without a formal charge and without trial. The person detained
is not required to be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours,
so as to give an opportunity to the Magistrate to peruse the record
and decide whether the detenu is to be remanded to police or judicial
custody or allowed to go with or without bail. The detenu cannot
engage a lawyer to represent him before the detaining authority. In the
said background it is of utmost importance that whatever procedural
safeguards are guaranteed to the detenu by the Constitution and the
preventive detention law, should be strictly followed. The Supreme
Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu Through Secretary to
Government and anr. (2011) 5 SCC 244, while emphasising need to
adhere to procedural safeguards, observed: