Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.98 seconds)Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rattan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors. Etc. Etc on 22 October, 1981
The Supreme Court quoted with approval the
observation made in Ratan Singh v. State of Punjab and others 1981 (4)
SCC 481, emphasising the need to ensure that the Constitutional and
Statutory safeguards available to a detenu were followed in letter and
spirit observed: "But the laws of preventive detention afford only a modicum of
safeguards to persons detained under them, and if freedom and liberty are to
have any meaning in our democratic set-up, it is essential that at- least those
safeguards are not denied to the detenu's."
Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs B.K. Jha & Anr on 9 February, 1987
9. The procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to
a detenu since the Court is not expected to go behind the subjective
satisfaction of Detaining Authority. As laid down by the Apex Court in
Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B. K. Jha and anr. (1987) 2 SCC 22,
the procedural requirements are, therefore, to be strictly complied with,
if any value is to be attached to the liberty of the subject and the
Constitutional rights guaranteed to him in that regard.
Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj vs The State Of Delhi And Others on 16 April, 1953
11. Preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and
meagre safeguards that the Constitution provides against improper
exercise of the power, must be jealously watched and enforced by the
Court, has been said by the Supreme Court in Dr. Ram Krishan
Bhardwaj v. The State of Delhi and ors 1953 SCR 708. Detenu has a right,
under Article 22(5), to be furnished with particulars of grounds of his
detention, sufficient to enable him to make a representation, which on
being considered may give relief to him. This Constitutional
requirement must be satisfied with respect to each of the grounds
communicated to the person detained, and if same has not been done,
detention cannot be held to be in accordance with the procedure
established by law within meaning of Article 21. The detenu is,
therefore, entitled to be released and set at liberty.
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Santosh Shankar Acharya on 1 August, 2000
13. In the present case Detaining Authority -No. 3, did not inform
detenu that detenu, independent of his right to file representation
against his detention to the Government, has also right to submit a
representation to Detaining Authority till detention was considered by
the Government and approved. Detaining authority has, in effect,
violated Constitutional and Statutory rights of detenu, guaranteed
under Article 22 (5), Constitution of India and Section 13, Jammu and
Kashmir Public Safety Act. Reference in this regard may be made to
the law laid down in State of Maharashtra and others v. Santosh Shankar
Acharya AIR 2000 SC 2504; Shabir Ahmad Malik v. State of J&K &ors
2011 (1) JKJ 171 [HC] and Mohammad Ashraf Khan v. State &ors 2010 (I)
SLJ 365.
Mohammad Ahsan Lone vs District Magistrate (Air 1982 Sc 1315); ... on 29 September, 2011
14. Detention of detenu has been ordered on the basis of grounds of
detention framed by District Magistrate. Perusal of grounds of
detention would show that it is a verbatim copy of Dossier of Senior
Superintendent of Police submitted by him to the concerned Magistrate.
Qua verbatim reproduction of Dossier, this Court in Naba Lone v.
District Magistrate 1988 SLJ 300 while dealing with a case where a
similar situation arose, observed:
Jai Singh And Ors. vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 24 January, 1985
16. A similar situation arose in Jai Singh and Ors. v. State of Jammu &
Kashmir AIR 1985 SC 764 before the Supreme Court. The Court
quashed detention as it found that there cannot be a greater proof of
non-application of mind and that the liberty of a subject being a serious
matter, it is not to be tripled with in this casual, indifferent and routine
manner. The Court observed:
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Paul Manickam And Anr. on 13 October, 2003
In a 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
HCP no.12/2017 Page 6 of 7
7
justice requires an action to be taken to prevent apprehended
objectionable activities. But at the same time, when a person's greatest
of human freedoms, i.e. personal liberty, is deprived, the laws of
preventive detention are required to be strictly construed, and a
meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, howsoever
technical, has to be mandatorily made. Reference in this regard is made
to HaradhanSaha v. The State of West Bengal & Others, (1975) 3 SCC 198
and Union of India v. Paul Manickam& Another, (2003) 8 SCC 342.