Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.53 seconds)Section 3 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Manu Bhusan Roy Pradhan vs State Of West Bengal on 31 October, 1972
making a fresh order operative soon after the expiry of the
period of detention, as also to minimise resort to detention
orders that s. 14 restricts the detention of a person on
given set of facts to the, original order and does not
permit a fresh order to be made on the same grounds which
were in existence when the original order was made. The
power of preventive detention being an extraordinary power
intended to be exercised only in extraordinary emergent
circumstances the legislative scheme of ss. 13 and 14 of the
Act suggests that the detaining authority is expected to
know and to take into account all the existing grounds and
make one order of detention which must not go beyond the
maximum period fixed. In the present case it is not urged
and indeed it is not possible to urge that after the actual
expiry of the original order of detention made by the
District Magistrate which could only last for 12 days in the
absence of its approval by the State Government, any fresh
facts could arise for sustaining the fresh order of
detention. The submission on behalf of the State that the
petitioner's activities are so highly communal and prone to
encourage violent communal activities that it was considered
absolutely necessary to detain him in the interest of
security of the State and maintenance of public order cannot
prevail in face of the statutory restrictions and the
guaranteed constitutional right which is available to all
persons. The rule of law reigns supreme in this Republic
and no person on the soil of free India can be deprived of
his personal liberty without the authority of law. As
observed by this Court in Manu Bhushan Roy Prodhan v. State
of West Bengal (1) :
Sampat Prakash vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 10 October, 1968
On behalf of the respondent reference was also made to
Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2) dealing with
detention under J. & K. Preventive Detention Act (J. & K.
Act 13 of 1964). Though in that Act there is a similar
provision [s. 14(2) of that Act] in the judgment there is no
reference to that section and it appears that no question
similar to the one- raised"
S. Azeez Basha And Anr vs Union Of India on 20 October, 1967
According to the writ petition the petitioner is an active
member of the Muslim Majlis and also a member of the Youth
Majlis. He was arrested while defying the order promulgated
under s. 144, Cr. P.C. This had been preceded by the various
Prejudicial activities in the month of May, 1972 as stated
in the grounds of detention and was followed two days later
by communal clashes. This agitation was carried an in
connection with a bill relating to the Aligarh Muslim
University ignoring that the legal position in respect of
this University had been authoritatively settled by this
Court as far back as October, 1967 in S. Azeez Basha v.
Union of India(';). These activities clearly bring the
petitioner's case within s. 3 of the Act, being calculated
to incite communal violence.
Dwarka Dass Bhatia vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 1 November, 1956
3-L796Sup.C.I/73
284
decisions, relied upon on behalf of the petitioner reported
in Dwarka Dass Bhatia v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir(1)
and Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal (2)
are. on the facts and circumstance of this, case of no
assistance to him.