Back
A.N.SEN, RANGANATH MISRA
Ramesh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate, Etah – Respondent
JUDGMENT
RANGANATH MISRA. J.:— This application under Art. 32 of the Constitution is directed against the order of detention of the petitioner under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The order is dated Sept. 16, 1984, and was made at a time when the petitioner had already been in Mainpuri Jail as an undertrial prisoner in connection with certain pending criminal cases. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner along with the order of detention. Petitioner asked for certain papers with a view to making an effective representation but when the request was rejected, the petitioner made a representation. The Board did not accept the petitioners plea. The petitioners detention was confirmed by the State Government. Thereupon the writ petition has been filed.
2. A return has been made to the rule nisi and the detaining authority has justified his order. It may be pointed out that the petitioner had been detained under the same provision by an earlier order dated December 7, 1981. That detention was quashed by the Allahabad High. Court by order dated May 27, 1982, in Writ Petition No. 2649/82.
3. Five grounds were advanced in support of the order of detention. They ar
No cases identified as bad law. There are no explicit references to any case being overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as invalid or bad law in the provided list. All citations appear to treat the referenced cases as valid precedent.
The vast majority of citations (nearly all entries) treat the cases positively, primarily Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah and others, (1985) 4 SCC 232 (also cited as AIR 1986 SC 315), as good law. It is repeatedly relied upon, quoted, and followed for principles such as: detention orders cannot be passed merely on apprehension of release from custody (e.g., "merely on the ground that an accused in detention as an under-trial prisoner was likely to be released on bail"); the detaining authority must show awareness of imminent release prospects; and mechanical/routine detention orders are invalid.
Examples supporting this category:
VIJENDER KUMAR JAIN VS UNION OF INDIA - 1985 0 Supreme(Del) 457: Cites Ramesh Yadav approvingly alongside others.
Suraj Pal Sahu. VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes (1986): "In Ramesh Yadav v. ... it was held that merely on the ground..."
Suraj Pal Sahu VS State Of Maharashtra - 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 348: "In Ramesh Yadav v. ... it was held that..."
SANTOSH KUMAR VS SUPDT. , CENTRAL JAIL, NAINI - 1986 0 Supreme(All) 380: "IN Ramesh Yadav v. ... the Honble Court has strongly commented upon..."
Desa Singh VS State of Punjab - 1987 0 Supreme(P&H) 385: Cites as verdict of Supreme Court.
Poonam Lata VS M. L. Wadhawan - 1987 0 Supreme(SC) 619: Quotes directly from Ramesh Yadav at PP. 2185-86 of AIR.
Gulab Mehra VS State Of U. P. - 1987 0 Supreme(SC) 725: "In a recent case of Ramesh Yadav v. ... it has been observed that..."
Bal Chand Bansal VS Union of India - Crimes (1987): Relied on by counsel.
Satbachan Singh VS State of Punjab - 1987 0 Supreme(P&H) 723: Quotes observations approvingly.
Harbhajan Singh VS State of Punjab - 1987 0 Supreme(P&H) 743: Cites by Lordships of Supreme Court.
Charat Singh VS State of Punjab - 1987 0 Supreme(P&H) 749: "Reference may be made to the observations... in Ramesh Yadav v."
Nishan Singh VS State of Punjab - 1987 0 Supreme(P&H) 803: "In Ramesh Yadav v. ... it was observed that..."
Shashi Aggarwal VS State Of U. P. - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 21: Quotes directly at P. 234.
Shashi Aggarwal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Crimes (1988): "In Ramesh Yadav v. ... this Court observed..."
ZAKI AHMAD VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1988 0 Supreme(All) 27: Referred to, but noted as considered in later case Poonam Lata (see uncertain_cases).
Master Partap Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1988 0 Supreme(P&H) 90: Reliance placed on Ramesh Yadav.
And dozens more (e.g., Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha VS State Of Punjab - 1988 0 Supreme(P&H) 263, Harpal Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1988 0 Supreme(P&H) 309, Baldev Singh VS State Of Punjab Thru. The Home Secy. To Govt. Punjab, Chandigarh - 1988 0 Supreme(P&H) 387, Ayya Alias Ayub VS State Of U. P. - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 714, Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh VS Shri S. N. Sinha, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad - Crimes (1989), Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh VS S. N. Sinha, Commissioner Of Police, Ahmedabad - 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 136, ANAND PRAKASH vs STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. - 1989 Supreme(Online)(SC) 53, etc.), all using phrases like "relied upon," "held," "observed," "cited," "verdict of Supreme Court," "law laid down," "principle enunciated," "squarely covered," confirming positive treatment.
Other cases like District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 SC 2090, (1986) 4 SCC 416) are similarly cited approvingly, often alongside Ramesh Yadav, for related preventive detention principles (e.g., Suraj Pal Sahu VS State Of Maharashtra - 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 348, Binod Singh VS District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar - Crimes (1986), Binod Singh VS District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar - 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 354, Desa Singh VS State of Punjab - 1987 0 Supreme(P&H) 385).
ZAKI AHMAD VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1988 0 Supreme(All) 27: Ramesh Yadav is referred to but explicitly "considered by the Honble Supreme Court in Poonam Lata v. M. L." – implies contextual application or limitation to facts, but not negative treatment.
Azrafatima VS Union Of India - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 336: Notes Shashi Aggarwal and Ramesh Yadav "were made on the facts of those particular cases," distinguishing/limiting to specific facts.
M. Ahamedkutty VS Union of India - Crimes (1990): Cites Ramesh Yadav but qualifies: "what amounts to unreasonable delay depends on facts"; contrasts with detenu's jail/bail status "not enough."
Kamarunnissa: Badhrunnissa: Sithy Aysha: Kamarunnissa: Badhrunnissa: Sithy Aysha VS Union Of India - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 542: Reiterates "ordinarily" from Ramesh Yadav, implying fact-specific limits.
RAM LAL VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2000 0 Supreme(All) 776: "WE are afraid, the decision in Ramesh Yadav (Supra) cannot [apply?]" – incomplete snippet, but suggests non-applicability (distinguished).
These show Ramesh Yadav applied but confined to particular circumstances, not rejected.
ZAKI AHMAD VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1988 0 Supreme(All) 27: Mentions Ramesh Yadav "has been considered... in Poonam Lata" without quoting the treatment; unclear if affirmed, distinguished, or limited (snippet cuts off).
RAM LAL VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2000 0 Supreme(All) 776: "RELIANCE was then placed on Ramesh Yadav... WE are afraid, the decision in Ramesh Yadav (Supra) cannot" – snippet incomplete; could be distinction or rejection, but context suggests factual inapplicability.
Shahrukh Yunus Khan VS State of Maharashtra - 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 363: Notes Ramesh Yadav decided by "a bench of two Judges" (possibly contrasting with larger bench), but still cited; treatment ambiguous.
Ambiguous name variations: Some entries use "Rakesh Yadav" or "Ramesh v. State of Gujarat" (Megammal VS State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Chief Secretary, Madras-9 - 1988 0 Supreme(Mad) 122, Negammal VS State of Tamil Nadu - Crimes (1988), Ahmedhussain Shaikhhussain @ Ahmed Kalio VS Commissioner of Police - Crimes (1989)) – likely typos for Ramesh Yadav v. DM Etah, treated positively where clarified.
These are categorized conservatively as uncertain due to incomplete phrasing or potential nuance, but no indication of bad law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
