Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)

Kubic Dariusz vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 January, 1990

7. In case of preventive detention no offence is proved, nor any charge is formulated and the justification of such detention is suspicion or reasonability and there is no criminal conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence. Preventive justice requires an action to be taken to prevent apprehended objectionable activities. (See Rex v. Nallidev 1917 AC 260; Mr. Kubic Dariusz v. Union of India and Ors. . But at the same time, a person's greatest of human freedoms, i.e., personal liberty is deprived, and, therefore, the laws of preventive detention are strictly construed, and a meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguard, however, technical is mandatory. The compulsions of the primordial need to maintain order in society, without which enjoyment of all rights, including the right of personal liberty would lose all their meanings, are the true justifications for the laws of preventive detention. This jurisdiction has been described as a "jurisdiction of suspicion", and the compulsions to preserve the values of freedom of a democratic society and social order sometimes merit the curtailment of the individual liberty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 80 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Ayya Alias Ayub vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 25 November, 1988

(See Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U.P. and Anr. . To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, said Thomas Jafferson, would be to lose the law, absurdly Page 1801 sacrificing the end to the means. No law is an end itself and the curtailment of liberty for reasons of State's security and national economic discipline as a necessary evil has to be administered under strict constitutional restrictions. No carte blanche is given to any organ of the State to be the sole arbiter in such matters.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 150 - M Rangnath - Full Document
1