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
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.”
A fundamentalist Muslim cannot be equated with an extremist; J&K and Ladakh HC observes
The Court also observed that fundamentalism pertaining to a Muslim is merely someone who believes in the fundamentals of Islam and the same cannot have a negative bearing.
Detenu may be hardened criminal or a smuggler, but Constitution mandates decision on representation without any delay: Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand High Court rejected any justification on part of the State regarding delay of at least 50 days on the ground that the matter was ‘under the process’.
Explained| Supreme Court’s verdict upholding Constitutionality of S. 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967
Supreme Court said that the object and purpose of the enactment of UAPA is to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities. To punish such a person who is continued as a member of such unlawful association which is declared unlawful due to unlawful activities can be said to be in furtherance of providing for effective prevention of the unlawful activities.
[Hathras Conspiracy case]: “Preventive detention of citizen for just and plausible reasons is a measure permissible under law”; Allahabad High Court grants bail to Atikur Rehman
Allahabad High Court granted bail to Atikur Rehman who was arrested in 2020 along with Siddique Kappan and two others on their way to meet the family of the Hathras Rape and Murder victim.
Manipur High Court directs the State Authority to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 to a detenu who was illegally detained for a period of 13 days in a drug trafficking case
The Manipur High Court directed the State Authority to pay Rs. 50,000 to the detenu as compensation for his illegal detention in a drug trafficking case.
Failure and non-supply of legible/translated copies of documents despite a request renders the order of detention illegal and bad in law; Delhi High Court sets aside the COFEPOSA detention order
Detaining Authority gravely erred in relying upon the illegible documents which is equivalent to non-placement of translated-RUDs in a language which the detenu understands, which consequently vitiates the ‘subjective satisfaction’ arrived at by the Detaining Authority.