Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)
Raja vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 28 July, 2022 cites

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

11. Hence, in view of law laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya reported in (2000) 7 SCC 463 was re-affirmed by the Hon’ble three Judges bench of the Supreme Court in Crl.A.No:728 of 2000, this court is inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the detenue that the detaining authority in the impugned detention order has not informed the right of detenu to make a representation before the detaining authority within 12 days, which resulted in infraction of Article 22 of Constitution of India. so, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 358 - Full Document

Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 April, 1995

“Mr.Altaf Ahmad, the learned Additional Solicitor General tried his level best to persuade us to take the view that the law laid down by this Court in the Constitution Bench judgment in Kamlesh Kumar's case (supra) was in relation to an order of detention under COFEPOSA and the law under COFEPOSA and NDPS Act provides different scheme than the scheme engrafted in the National Security Act or other Preventive Detention Laws including the Maharashtra Act as well as the Tamil Nadu Act. According to him, Article 22(5) of the Page 8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1372 of 2022 Constitution of India confers right of earliest representation, to a detenu but does not provide as to who is the authority to whom a representation could be made and, therefore, there is no bar for the Legislature to provide a specific authority to whom a representation could be made and in a case where the Legislature have provided such authority to whom a representation could be made, then it cannot be said that the detenu has still a right of making a representation to the detaining authority. Though this argument sounds. attractive but does not sustain on a larger constitutional perspective and on examining the rights of a detenu to make a representation to an authority which is the only right offered to a detenu. We are conscious of the fact that by interpreting the provisions as has been interpreted by us in Cr1.A. No. 596/2000, several dangerous detenus may have to be released, but yet the consequences will not bind us ... interpreting a constitutional provision as well as different provisions of the Act in question and having examined and re-examined the different decisions relied upon by us in crl.. A. No. 596/2000, we are not persuaded to take a different view than what has been taken. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions and the Criminal Appeal stand dismissed. The view taken by us in Crl. A. No. 596/2000 is re-affirmed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 463 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 Next