Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)Tarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951
In Tarapada De v. State or West Bengal, the Supreme Court pointed out that vague grounds do not stand on the same footing as irrelevant grounds. An irrelevant ground has no connection at all with the satisfaction of the authority making the order of detention. It was also emphasised that sufficiency of the grounds which gives rise to the satisfaction of the authority is not a matter for examination of the Court. We have said above, sufficiency of the grounds ton the purpose of inducing satisfaction of the authority concerned is entirely different from sufficiency in relation to the detenu's right to make an effective representation.
Dwarka Dass Bhatia vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 1 November, 1956
16. Assuming for a moment that one or two grounds-were not as precise as one would wish, even then the order cannot be pronounced bad. As was observed by the Supreme Court in Dwarka Das Bhatia v. State of jammu and Kashmir, , while the Court should not uphold an order of detention in spite OT invalidity of some of the reasons or grounds, it is its duty to be satisfied as to whether the allegedly vague or irrelevant ground is such as, if excluded, might reasonably have affected the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. If some ground or reason appears to the Court to be of comparatively unessential nature, the order of detention cannot be held bad, merely because there are one or two such particulars amongst a number of others upon which an order of detention has been made.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Preventive Detention Act, 1950
1