IBC Moratorium Under Part III Does Not Shield Directors From Personal Criminal Liability In Cheque Bounce Cases U/S 138 NI: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act Is Predominantly Criminal; IBC Moratorium Stays Recovery Of Compensation But Not Prosecution: Supreme Court Refers To 3-Judge Bench Bus Driver Not Negligent If Vehicle Moved Based On Conductor's Whistle; Not Expected To Look Back For Alighting Passengers: Supreme Court Compassionate Assistance Received By Widow Cannot Be Deducted To Negate Compensation Payable To Dependent Mother Ineligible For Such Benefit: Supreme Court Section 37 Jurisdiction Is A Narrowing Pyramid; Courts Should Not Reopen Settled Jurisdictional Issues: Supreme Court Arbitration Award Passed Without Court Leave During Pendency Of Suit Is Unenforceable Under 1940 Act: Supreme Court Notice In Mutation Proceedings Constitutes Constructive Notice Of Probate; Revocation Plea Barred By Limitation: Supreme Court Breach Of Position Limits Is A Regulatory Infraction, Not Automatic Market Fraud; Supreme Court Sets Aside Reliance RPL Disgorgement Order Mere Breach Of Position Limits Not 'Fraud' Under PFUTP Regulations Unless Manipulation Or Inducement Is Proven: Supreme Court SC Awards ₹11 Lakh Compensation To Convict For 24-Day Delay In Release; Says State Must 'Obey First, Appeal Later' Compensation For Village Fazalwas Land Acquisition No Longer Res Integra; Supreme Court Dismisses Enhancement Claim Citing Previous Precedent Uncommunicated Adverse Remarks Cannot Form Basis To Terminate Probationer; Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Employer Cannot Use 'Unsatisfactory Performance' As Guise To Bypass Disciplinary Inquiry For Misconduct: Supreme Court Statutory Body Cannot Act As Both Investigator And Judge; Adjudicatory Process Must Be Neutrally Conducted: Supreme Court Removal Of Mathadhipati Vitiated If Relied-Upon Documents Not Supplied; Service By Affixation On Seized Premises Is A Legal Absurdity: Supreme Court Serving Notice By Affixing It To Door Of Premises Already Seized By State Is A Legal Absurdity: Supreme Court Initiating Criminal Case After Final Settlement Of Loan Account Is An Abuse Of Process; Sanctity Of OTS Must Be Protected: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Under Sections 420 & 471 IPC Cannot Continue After Bank Loan Settlement Approved By DRT: Supreme Court RTE Act: Use Of 'Teacher' In Section 23 Shows Intent To Make TET Mandatory For In-Service Staff, Not Retrospective: Supreme Court Service Of Teachers Cannot Come At Cost Of Educational Future Of Children: Supreme Court Extends TET Deadline To 2028 Right To Know Biological Father Prevails Over Right To Privacy; DNA Test Can Be Ordered To Resolve Paternity: Supreme Court DNA | Child’s Right To Identity & Closure Outweighs Putative Father’s Right To Privacy In Paternity Disputes: Supreme Court Approver’s Testimony Doesn’t Require Corroboration Of Every Material Circumstance; Rule Of Prudence Requires Only Connecting Link To Accused: Supreme Court Conspirator Liable For All 'Reasonably Foreseeable' Crimes Committed By Others In Furtherance Of Conspiracy: Supreme Court Rent Enhancement Orders Under UP Rent Act Must Apply Retrospectively From Date Of Filing Application: Supreme Court High Court Can’t Enhance Rent Under Article 227 Based On Mere Statements Without Evidence; Power To Be Exercised Sparingly: Supreme Court Parrot Testimony | Verbatim Repetition Of Allegations In Child's Statement Indicates Tutoring; POCSO Complaint Filed As 'Counter-Blast' Liable To Be Quashed: Supreme Court Matrimonial Disputes Often Witness Vague POCSO Allegations To Settle Personal Scores: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Husband & In-Laws

'Capricious Exercise of Powers Must Be Nipped in the Bud: Supreme Court Quashes Preventive Detention Orders in Telangana

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court set aside the preventive detention orders against two individuals from Telangana, stressing the imperative need for responsible and judicious exercise of preventive detention powers.

The Apex Court's judgment revolved around the crucial legal aspect of preventive detention under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The bench underscored the necessity of strict adherence to legal standards while exercising the exceptional power of preventive detention.

The appeals stemmed from the preventive detention of two individuals, charged with various offences including robbery and chain-snatching. Detained under the Act of 1986, they challenged the detention orders, arguing that their activities were painted as threats to public order without substantial basis.

The Court meticulously analyzed the Detaining Authority's reasoning and observed a lack of substantial connection between the alleged activities and the disturbance of public order. Justice Pardiwala remarked, "Merely because the appellant detenu has been charged for multiple offences, it cannot be said that he is in the habit of committing such offences." The Court stressed the significance of distinguishing between 'law and order' and 'public order'. The Apex Court also highlighted the role of the Advisory Board in preventive detention cases, emphasizing their duty to scrutinize detention orders rigorously.

The Court, in its verdict, quashed the detention orders against the appellants, citing insufficient grounds and a lack of proper application of mind by the detaining authorities. The justices ordered the immediate release of the appellants, provided they are not required in any other case.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2024

Nenavath Bujji Etc. Vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.

Latest Legal News