Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.62 seconds)
Smt Manisha Sukhdev Gorde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 June, 2013 cites

Dropti Devi & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 July, 2012

Jaswal, PS; "India--Judicial Review", in Preventive Detention and Security Law: A Commparative Survey, Andrew Harding, John Hatchard, ed., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 11 Dropti Devi & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors, (2012) 2012 (7) SCC 499 12 Maya Ajit Satam v State of Maharashtra, 2012 114 (5) Bom.L.R. 2969; Sangita Deepak Jare v State of Maharashtra and Ors, 2012 All MR (Cri) 3190 20 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:01:35 ::: WP1288-13-F.doc Under our constitutional jurisprudence, Articles 21 and 22 together constitute an integrated code in matters relating to personal liberty and preventive detention.13 It follows, therefore, that any action that curbs that fundamental right must conform, and conform exactly, to the contours of A.22(5) and that is why courts so jealously protect the rights of the detenu -- not to undermine detention statutes or authorities acting under them, but to ensure, in the words of Cicero, that "we are all slaves of the law, that we may enjoy our freedom".
Supreme Court of India Cites 72 - Cited by 87 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Rajender Singh Pathania & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 12 August, 2011

9 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:01:35 ::: WP1288-13-F.doc plain language, imminence is "the quality or condition of something about to occur". It therefore postulates a temporal proximity between the Sponsoring Authority's proposal, the formulation of grounds by the Detaining Authority based on his or her subjective satisfaction, and the service of that detention order. Rajender Singh Pathania v State (NCT of Delhi) 4 arose out of proceedings under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In paragraph 17 of its decision, the Supreme Court said:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 73 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next