Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The National Security Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs Adam Kasam Bhaya on 18 September, 1981
See
the observations of The State of Gujarat v. Adam Kasam
Bhaya, [1982] 1 SCR 740. The difference between public order
and law and order is a matter of degree. If the morale of
the police force or of the people is shaken by making them
lose their faith in the law enforcing machinery of the State
then prejudice is occasioned to maintenance of public order.
Such attempts or actions which undermine the public faith in
the police administration at a time when tensions are high,
affects maintenance of public order and as such conduct is
prejudicial.
The National Security Act, 1980
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971
Section 87 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Nizamuddin vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974
To shift the blame for public order situation and raise
the bogey of the conduct of the petitioner would not be
proof of genuine or real belief about the conduct of the
petitioner but only raising a red herring. This question was
examined by this Court in Nizamuddin v. The State of West
Bengal, [1975] 2 SCR 593. The question involved therein was
under s. 3(2) of the Internal Security Act, 1971. There was
delay of about two and a half months in detaining the peti-
tioner pursuant to the order of detention and the Court
considered that unless the delay was satisfactorily ex-
plained, it would throw considerable doubt on the genuine-
ness of the subjective satisfaction of the Distt. Magistrate
recited in the order of detention. Mr. Justice Bhagwati, as
the learned Chief Justice then was, speaking for the Court
observed at page 595 of the report that it will be reasona-
ble to assume that if the Distt. Magistrate was really and
genuinely satisfied after proper application of mind to the
materials before him that it was necessary to detain the
petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a
prejudicial manner, he would have acted with greater promp-
titude in securing the arrest of the petitioner immediately
after invoking of the order of detention, and the petitioner
would not have been allowed to remain at large for such a
long period of time to carry on his nefarious activities. It
is, however, not the law that whenever there is some delay
63
in arresting the subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority must be held to be not genuine or colourable. Each
case must depend on its own peculiar facts and circum-
stances. In this case, from the facts and the circumstances
set out hereinbefore we find no reasonable or acceptable
explanation for the delay. In a situation of communal ten-
sion prompt action is imperative. It is, therefore, not
possible for this Court to be satisfied that the District
Magistrate had applied his mind and arrived at "real" and
"genuine" subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to
detain the petitioner to "prevent" him from wrong doing. The
condition precedent, therefore, was not present.
Section 88 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 11 December, 1978
But as
Justice Chinnappa Reddy explained in Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji
v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., [1979] 2 SCR 633 at page 638
that there must be 'live and proximate link' between the
grounds of detention alleged by the detaining authority and
the avowed purpose of detention, and in appropriate cases it
is possible to assume that the link is 'snapped' if there is
a long and unexplained delay between the date of the order
of detention and the arrest of the detenu.