Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sayed Taher Bawamiya vs Joint Secretary To The Govt. Of India And ... on 3 August, 2000
"This Court has been categorical that in matters of
pre-detention cases interference of court is not
called for except in the circumstances set forth by
us earlier. If this aspect is borne in mind, the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana could not have
quashed the order of detention either on the ground
of delay in passing the impugned order or delay in
executing the said order, for mere delay either in
passing the order or execution thereof is not fatal
except where the same stands unexplained. In the
given circumstances of the case and if there are
good reasons for delay in passing the order or in
not giving effect to it, the same could be explained
and those are not such grounds which could be
made the basis for quashing the order of detention
at a pre-detention stage. Therefore, following the
decisions of this Court in Addl. Secy. to the Govt.
of India Vs. Alka Subhash Gadia and Sayed Taher
Bawamiya Vs. Jt. Secy. to the Govt. of India, we
hold that the order made by the High Court is bad
in law and deserves to be set aside".
Section 7 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Additional Secretary To The Government ... vs Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia And Anr on 20 December, 1990
Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State of Bihar, submitted before us that the question involved in the
instant appeal is not whether the order of detention should be struck
down on the ground that the State of Bihar has not taken necessary
steps to implement the order of detention, but whether at the pre-arrest
stage the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of detention
on such grounds. He submitted that the decisions of this Court have
taken the view that exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can be justified only in appropriate cases and the
scope for interference is very limited. Normally the Court would not
interfere with the order of detention at a pre-arrest stage under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that there are only 5
exceptions to this rule which would justify interference by the Court
at the pre-execution stage with the order of detention. Those five
situations have been enumerated in the case of Additional Secretary to
the Government of India and others Vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and
another : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 496;
Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.U. Iqbal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 December, 1991
It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative or
reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object
of which being to prevent the anti-social and subversive elements
from imperiling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation
or from disturbing the public tranquility or from indulging in
smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances etc. Preventive detention is
devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the subject
have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised
to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for
having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to
prevent him from doing so. It, therefore, becomes imperative on the
part of the detaining authority as well as the executing authority to be
very vigilant and keep their eyes skinned but not to turn a blind eye in
securing the detenue and executing the detention order because any
indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining authority or executing
authority will defeat the very purpose of preventive action and turn
the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire
proceedings. Inordinate delay, for which no adequate explanation is
furnished, led to the assumption that the live and proximate link
between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is
snapped. (See : P.U. Iqbal vs. Union of India and others : (1992) 1
SCC 434 ; Ashok Kumar vs. Delhi Administration : (1982) 2 SCC
403 and Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji vs. State of Tamilnadu : (1979) 1
SCC 465.
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Administration & Ors on 5 May, 1982
It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative or
reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object
of which being to prevent the anti-social and subversive elements
from imperiling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation
or from disturbing the public tranquility or from indulging in
smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances etc. Preventive detention is
devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the subject
have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised
to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for
having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to
prevent him from doing so. It, therefore, becomes imperative on the
part of the detaining authority as well as the executing authority to be
very vigilant and keep their eyes skinned but not to turn a blind eye in
securing the detenue and executing the detention order because any
indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining authority or executing
authority will defeat the very purpose of preventive action and turn
the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire
proceedings. Inordinate delay, for which no adequate explanation is
furnished, led to the assumption that the live and proximate link
between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is
snapped. (See : P.U. Iqbal vs. Union of India and others : (1992) 1
SCC 434 ; Ashok Kumar vs. Delhi Administration : (1982) 2 SCC
403 and Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji vs. State of Tamilnadu : (1979) 1
SCC 465.
Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 11 December, 1978
It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative or
reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object
of which being to prevent the anti-social and subversive elements
from imperiling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation
or from disturbing the public tranquility or from indulging in
smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances etc. Preventive detention is
devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the subject
have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised
to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for
having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to
prevent him from doing so. It, therefore, becomes imperative on the
part of the detaining authority as well as the executing authority to be
very vigilant and keep their eyes skinned but not to turn a blind eye in
securing the detenue and executing the detention order because any
indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining authority or executing
authority will defeat the very purpose of preventive action and turn
the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire
proceedings. Inordinate delay, for which no adequate explanation is
furnished, led to the assumption that the live and proximate link
between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is
snapped. (See : P.U. Iqbal vs. Union of India and others : (1992) 1
SCC 434 ; Ashok Kumar vs. Delhi Administration : (1982) 2 SCC
403 and Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji vs. State of Tamilnadu : (1979) 1
SCC 465.