Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

“Jammu and Kashmir High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Order in Narcotic Drug Trafficking Case, Balancing Individual Liberty and Societal Welfare”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent significant judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld a preventive detention order in a case related to illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs. The verdict, delivered by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal on August 29, 2023, delves into the legality of the detention order, the nature of the activities attributed to the individual, and the procedures followed by the detaining authority.

The judgment underscores the significance of preventive detention as a protective measure rather than a punitive action. It highlights the delicate balance required between an individual’s personal liberty and the larger welfare of society, particularly when the case involves serious offenses such as drug trafficking.

Justice Nargal’s ruling acknowledges the limited scope of judicial review concerning subjective satisfaction. It emphasizes that while the court must safeguard individual liberties, it also needs to uphold the necessity of preventive detention to maintain public safety and security.

“The Court must be conscious that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is ‘subjective’ in nature and the Court cannot substitute its opinion for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and interfere with the order of detention,” the judgment notes. It references legal precedents to emphasize the court’s role in upholding the delicate balance between individual freedoms and societal interests.

The judgment observes, "Liberty of an Individual has to be subordinated, within reasonable bounds, to the good of the people. The framers of the Constitution were conscious of the practical need of preventive detention with a view to striking a just and delicate balance between the need and necessity to preserve individual liberty and personal freedom on the one hand and security and safety of the country and interest of the society on the other hand.”

Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld the detention order, deeming it to have been passed after due procedure and careful consideration of the individual’s propensity for engaging in prejudicial activities. The judgment serves as a reminder of the court’s pivotal role in maintaining this equilibrium while safeguarding both individual rights and the greater well-being of society.

 Date of Decision: 29th August 2023 

 Happy Singh vs Union of  India

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Happy_Singh_Vs_UOI_29_Aug_24_J^0K.pdf"]

Latest Legal News