Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.01 seconds)
Prakash @ Pintu Girdharbhai Marathi ... vs Commissioner Of Police & 2 on 4 August, 2014 cites

Commissioner Of Police And Ors vs Smt. C. Anita on 23 August, 2004

III In the case of Commissioner of Police v/s C. Anita reported in [2004] 7 S.C.C. 467, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court cannot substitute its own opinions for that of the detaining authority when the grounds of detention are precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant. It is further stated that preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence, while the criminal proceedings are to punish a person for an offence committed by him. Thereby they are not parallel proceedings. It is further observed that "public order", "law and order" and the "security of Page 17 of 19 C/SCA/1954/2014 CAV JUDGMENT the State" fictionally draw three concentric circles, the largest representing law and order, the next representing public order and the smallest representing security of the State. Every infraction of law must necessarily affect order, but an act affecting law and order may not necessarily also affect the public order. Likewise, an act may affect public order, but not necessarily the security of the State. The true test is not the kind, but the potentiality of the act in question. Acts similar in nature, but committed in different contexts and circumstances, might cause different reactions. The act by itself, therefore, is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ from other similar acts, but in its potentiality, that is, in its impact on society, it may be very different. One act may affect only individuals while the other, though of a similar kind, may have such an impact that it would disturb the even tempo of the life of the community. This does not mean that there can be no overlapping, in the sense that an act cannot fall under two concepts at the same time. An act, for instance, affecting public order may have an impact that it would affect both public order and the security of the State.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 138 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Ranubhai Bhikhabhai Bharwad (Vekaria) vs State Of Gujarat on 14 March, 2000

In the cases of [i] Ranubhai Bhikhabhai Bharwad (supra), [ii] Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki (supra) and [iii] Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that the activities of the detenu cannot be said to be dangerous to the maintenance of public order and at the most fall under the maintenance of "law and order", whereas in the present case the facts are otherwise.
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1223 - Full Document
1   2 Next