Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.85 seconds)
Yatindra Verma S/O Shri Nandlal Verma ... vs Home Department on 24 June, 2021 cites

Huidrom Konungjao Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 17 May, 2012

12) The detention order was communicated to the petitioner on 13/05/2021. It was approved by State Govt. on 14/05/2021 i.e. within statutory limit. As per (2012) 7 SCC 181 (Konungjao Singh vs. State of Manipur & Ors.), the petitioner was entitled to receive an information regarding grounds of detention and was further entitled to get an opportunity to represent against it. Both the requirements were taken care of. Hence, no interference is required by this Court. The report of Superintendent of Police shows that the likelihood of involvement of petitioner in similar acts was not ruled out. This report became basis for passing of detention order. The stand of the State is that there was no suppression or misrepresentation of fact regarding showing the status of corpus as "absconder". The scope of judicial review in NSA matters is limited. Necessary parameters on which interference can be made are missing. Hence, interference may be declined.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 619 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) vs Raj Narain & Anr on 24 June, 1975

"K.K. Methew, J. in Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain stated that the major problem of human society is to combine that degree of liberty without which law is tyranny with that degree of law without which liberty becomes licence; and the difficulty has been to discover the practical means of achieving this grand objective and to find the opportunity for applying these means in the ever shifting tangle of human affairs."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 234 - V R Iyer - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Santosh Shankar Acharya on 1 August, 2000

Notably, both these points have been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others vs. Santosh Shankar Acharya (2000) 7 SCC 463 in para 5 and 6 in particular. The Supreme Court following the dictum in the case of Kamleshkumar restated that non-communication of the fact to the detenu that he could make a representation to the detaining Authority so long as order of detention has not been approved by the State Government in case the order of detention has been issued by the Officer other than the State Government, would constitute infringement of right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and this ratio of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh kumar would apply notwithstanding the fact that same has been made in the context of provisions of COFEPOSA Act. In para 6 of the reported decision, the Supreme Court rejected the similar objection canvassed by the learned counsel for the State relying on VeeramanĂ¢Â™ s case and noted that the said decision does not help the respondents in any manner. Inasmuch as, in that case the Court was called upon to consider the matter in the context of situation that emerged subsequent to the date of approval of the order of detention by the State Government and not prior thereto. In none of the cases on hand the observation in the case of Veeramani will have any application. Suffice it to observe that the detention order and the disclosure of the fact that detenu could make representation to the detaining Authority before the State Government considered the proposal for approval has abridged the right of detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. As a result, the continued detention of the detenu on the basis of such infirm order cannot be countenanced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 358 - Full Document

The State Of Bombay vs Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya on 25 January, 1951

"6. This provision has the same force and sanctity as any other provision relating to fundamental rights. (See: State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya [1951 SCR 167, 186 : AIR 1951 SC 157] .) Article 22(5) imposes a dual obligation on the authority making the order of preventive detention: (i) to communicate to the person detained as soon as may be the grounds on which the order of detention has been made; and (ii) to afford the person detained the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. Article 22(5) thus proceeds on the basis that the person detained has a right to make a representation against the order of detention and the aforementioned two obligations are imposed on the authority making the order of detention with a view to ensure that right of the person detained to make a representation is a real right and he is able to take steps for redress of a wrong which he thinks has been committed. Article 22(5) does not, however, indicate the authority to whom the representation is to be made. Since the object and purpose of the representation that is to be 16 W.P. No.9792/2021 made by the person detained is to enable him to obtain relief at the earliest opportunity, the said representation has to be made to the authority which can grant such relief, i.e., the authority which can revoke the order of detention and set him at liberty. The authority that has made the order of detention can also revoke it. This right is inherent in the power to make the order. It is recognised by Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 though it does not flow from it. It can, therefore, be said that Article 22(5) postulates that the person detained has a right to make a representation against the order of detention to the authority making the order. In addition, such a representation can be made to any other authority which is empowered by law to revoke the order of detention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 283 - H J Kania - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next