Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)N. Meera Rani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 22 August, 1989
Supreme Court in the case of N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu thereof has summarized the position in this respect, thus :- "We may summarise and reiterate the settled principle. Subsisting custody of the detenu by itself does not invalidate an order of its preventive detention and the decision must depend on the facts of the particular case; preventive detention being necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order etc. Ordinarily it is not needed when the detenu is already in custody; the detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while making the order but, even so, if the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied on cogent material that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities , the detention order can be validly made even in anticipation to operate on his release. This appears to us to be the correct legal position."
Smt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court. The first is Smt. Gracy v. State of Kerala and Anr. In this judgment while dealing with the said aspect of the matter the Apex Court has held in paras 8 and 9 thereof as follows:-
Kubic Darusz vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 18 January, 1990
In another case Kubic Darusz v. Union of India and Ors. . The Apex Court after considering various rulings has observed thus:-
John Martin vs The State Of West Bengal on 21 January, 1975
There has been a catena of decisions of this Court that the representation of the detenu must be considered by the appropriate Government and Article 22(5) does not say which is the authority to whom representation shall be made or which authority shall consider fit. But it is indisputable that the representation may be made by the detenu to the appropriate Government and it is the appropriate Government that has to consider the representation as was reiterated in John Martin v. State of West Bengal.