Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

“Supreme Court Quashes Detention Order, Declares ‘Detention Being a Restriction on the Invaluable Right to Personal Liberty’ Must Reflect in Orders”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment that could reshape the legal landscape surrounding preventive detention in India, the Supreme Court today quashed a detention order, emphasizing the sanctity of personal liberty and the need for meticulous procedural compliance. The Court stated, “Detention being a restriction on the invaluable right to personal liberty of an individual... ought to bear some reflection in the order of detention.”

The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, came in an appeal against a High Court order that upheld a preventive detention. The case scrutinized the constitutional and legal framework of preventive detention, specifically under the Act concerned with the case.

The Court highlighted multiple key areas, including the need for strict compliance with procedural safeguards. “The objective sought to be fulfilled in each case, whether it is sub-served by continuing detention for the maximum period, ought to bear some reflection in the order of detention,” the judgment read.

The Court also made a crucial distinction between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order,’ stating that preventive detention could only be invoked for activities affecting public order. The judgment found that the evidence presented by the detaining authority was insufficient to establish a threat to public order.

One of the most significant observations was the Court’s critique of the routine extension of detention orders to the maximum permissible period. “Having observed the uncanny consistency of authorities continuing detention orders... without the barest of application of mind, we think that it is time to say a few words,” the judgment stated.

The Court emphasized the role of the Advisory Board in preventive detention laws, describing it as a safeguard against abuse of power. It noted that the detaining authority should specify the duration of detention rather than routinely extending it to the maximum permissible period.

The detenu, whose detention order was quashed, is to be released forthwith, as per the Court’s directive.

Date of Decision: 04 September 2023

AMEENA BEGUM  vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

          

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/04-Sep-2023_Ameena_Begum_Vs_State.pdf"]

Latest Legal News