Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.34 seconds)Section 1 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj vs The State Of Delhi And Others on 16 April, 1953
In Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj's case (Supra), a detention,
under. Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act of 1952,
was held to be vitiated on the ground that one of the
grounds was vague so that his constitutional safeguard, by
getting an opportunity of making a representation against
his detention had been impaired. This was a decision under
the provisions of an enactment of 1952.
Section 9 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
The State Of Bombay vs Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya on 25 January, 1951
In Vaidya's case (Supra) the Bombay High Court had allowed a
Habeas Corpus petition because the grounds did not give the
time, place, and nature of the activities indulged in by
the petitioner so that his right to make a representation
was defeated, although, the Bombay High Court had also held
that the particulars, which were subsequently supplied to
the detenu by the Commissioner of Police, were enough to
enable him to make an effective representation. A Bench of
five Judges of this Court held that there had been no
contravention of the constitutional right to make a
representation. It was explained there that grounds which
have to be communicated to the detenu were conclusions from
facts, constituting particulars, all of which need not be
conveyed to the detenu simultaneously. The particulars
supplied subsequently were enough to remove the uncertainty
from the grounds. If what may appear vague can be made
definite by supplying particulars afterwards, it follows
that, a fortiori vagueness in the earlier ,or any other part
of a document may be removed by the particulars contained in
the remaining parts of the very document containing grounds.
Section 3 in Preventive Detention Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Lawrence Joachim Joseph D'Souza vs The State Of Bombay on 24 April, 1956
It was also held by this Court in Lawrence Joachim Joseph
Disouza v. The State of Bombay.(6) that the detenu has a
right to call for particulars. This implied that mere
alleged vagueness of grounds or insufficiency of
particulars, without calling upon the detaining authority to
remedy this defect, may not be enough to vitiate a detention
order.
Babul Mitra vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 21 September, 1972
In support of the second ground of attack-that the period of
nearly three weeks taken by the Govt. in rejecting the
petitioners representations was so long as to defeat the
right of petitioners to make a representation-the decisions
cited before us on-behalf of the petitioners were : Babul
Mitra v. State of West Bengal & Ors.,(1) Khaiden Ibocha
Singh etc. v. State of Manipur.