Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court noted that nothing is stated by the detaining authority as to why the conditions are not sufficient to prevent the detenu from engaging in further activities of smuggling; which was the specific ground on which the conditions were imposed while granting bail.
The Trial Court was directed to return the passport surrendered by the accused within 2 weeks of submission of application for the same.
“In the matters pertaining to personal liberty of the citizens, the Authorities are enjoined with a constitutional obligation to decide the representation with utmost expedition. Each day’s delay matters in such a case.”
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.
Supreme Court: In the case where the State Advisory Board had heard a detenu on video conference, without any sufficient prior intimation
Supreme Court: Stating that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority under COFEPOSA is not immune from judicial reviewability, the bench of
Supreme Court: In the matter relating to supply of the ‘grounds’ of detention to the detenue when the Court has passed the