2024 SCC Vol. 9 Part 1
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 7 R. 11(d) — Suit or application whether barred by limitation — When no limitation provided for — Power
Preventive Detention
Know Thy Judge | Justice Tashi Rabstan, 37th Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Justice Tashi Rabstan was earlier recommended to be appointed as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court; however, the SC Collegium modified its proposal to recommend him as Chief Justice of his parent High Court of J&K and Ladakh.
J&K High Court cautions authorities against misusing Preventive Detention powers at cost of mocking the Constitution
“There is no iota of doubt that the preventive detention of the petitioner is a sheer abuse of jurisdiction of preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.”
Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge | Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Justice N. Kotiswar Singh was serving as the Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, prior to being elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 18-7-2024.
[Preventive Detention] | Bombay HC sets aside detention order due to unexplained delay by Detaining Authority to decide on detenu’s representation
“When the liberty of a person is imperiled, immediate action should be taken by the relevant authorities”
“Once a statute provides for detention under specific contingency, a person can’t be detained under another contingency”: J&K and Ladakh HC
The Court pointed out that the petitioner could have been detained only under Section 8 (1)(a-1) of the PSA and not under Section 8(1)(a) of the PSA, as both the clauses (a) and (a-1) operate in different fields
HIGH COURT JUNE 2024 WEEKLY ROUNDUP| Stories on West Bengal Post Poll Violence; Delhi Riots 2020; Delhi Excise Policy; and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
Preventive detention is justified only when an individual’s actions have potential to affect Public Order: Telangana High Court
There is a distinction between “Law and Order” and “Public Order”, i.e., offences that target specific individuals fall under the category of “Law and Order” and it is only when the criminal activities of an individual adversely affect the public at large that their conduct is deemed to disturb “Public Order”.
J&K and Ladakh HC takes stern note of “copy-paste UAPA arguments” highlighting internal security instead of focusing on specific material against an accused
The Court pointed out that to be influenced by the forceful submission of internal security of the State, and to reject a bail application where the State has utterly failed to disclose any material against the accused, is a sure shot recipe for miscarriage of justice.
Grounds of detention incapable of being intelligently understood, can be termed as vague: J&K and Ladakh HC reiterates
“In other words, a detenue may be able to make an effective representation if the details of the facts, on the basis of which conclusion is drawn by the detaining authority, are furnished to him”.
J&K Administration must pay compensation of 5 lakhs to a lawyer detained in preventive custody for more than 1080 days: J&K and Ladakh HC
The Court noted that petitioner had been made to suffer loss of his liberty for a cumulative period of more than 1080 days of preventive custody covered under the span of four detention orders in row from 2019 to March 2024.
Live Updates: Sir Syed National Moot Court Competition (SSNMCC) 2024; Aligarh Muslim University
ABOUT THE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY Aligarh Muslim University (A.M.U.) is among the oldest Central Universities of India. It was established by Sir
J&K and Ladakh HC quashes the detention order issued in 2022 based on an FIR registered against a detenue in 2004
The petitioner was detained in June 2022 based on a FIR registered against him in 2004. However, the petitioner had already been acquitted from the charges levied against him in 2004.
Never Reported Judgment| When in a 4:1 verdict, SC refused to release man detained under Preventive Detention Act; Justice M.C. Mahajan dissented [(1952) 1 SCC 769]
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
High Courts Monthly Roundup September 2023 | Top Stories on Inter-religion Live-in relationship; Watching Pornographic content in private; Sanatan Dharma; and more
This monthly roundup for September 2023 contains important legal stories from the High Courts across the country that keeps you updated on various aspects of law.
[Preventive Detention] | Unreasonably belated consideration of representation is equivalent to non-compliance of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution: J&K and Ladakh HC
The detenue specifically alleged that he made a representation against impugned detention order, however, the same was not considered by the detaining authority.
Decoding Madras High Court verdict on right of detenu to make effective representation against preventive detention order
“This right of a detenu to make an effective representation against a preventive detention order is a very sacrosanct and sanctus constitutional right and such constitutional safeguard is ingrained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India”
Being brother of a militant, and lacking any ostensible activities disrupting public peace or security, cannot justify preventive detention: J&K and Ladakh HC
The live and proximate link between the past conduct of the detenue and the imperative need to detain, must be harmonised to rely upon the alleged illegal activities of the detenue.
Supreme Court | Section 3(2) of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 deals with delegation of powers, not detention period
Holding that Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 13 SCC 722 does not lay down the correct law, the Supreme Court observed that Section 3(2) has nothing to do with the period of detention.
Never Reported Judgment | When Supreme Court upheld validity of detention for more than three months under Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 [(1952) 1 SCC 203]
“This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.”