Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S.GADKARI, NEELA GOKHALE
Anil Baburao Baile – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to uapa's constitutionality. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments concerning legislative power and effects of constitutional amendments. (Para 3 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. assessment of judicial discretion and the presumption of constitutionality. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ and/or directions to declare the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, “ UAPA ”) and Section 124-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short, “IPC”) as ultra virus and unconstitutional. The Petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate writ and/or directions for quashing and setting aside the Notice dated 10th July 2020, issued by the National Investigation Agency (for short, “the NIA”) i.e. Respondent No.5 herein.
2) OVERVIEW :
2.1) The Petitioner is stated to be a self-employed citizen of India and works as a Financial Advisor and Freelancer, also doing social work in his area of residence. The Respondents are the Union of India, the National Investigation Agency as well as the State of Maharashtra.
2.2) The Petitioner is stated to belong to the Mahar community, included in the
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 remains constitutionally valid, and legislative authority regarding preventive detention is upheld despite the non-notification of amendments.
Rejection of application of Bail – Rioting/violence – Protest against the CAA -Petitioner Intended to paralyse the governance of Delhi by violent means to force the Union Govt, to withdraw CAA
(1) Once an association is declared unlawful of whom concerned person was member wishes to continue as a member despite the fact that he is well aware of fact that such an association is declared unl....
High Court cannot entertain challenges to settled constitutional provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as upheld by the Supreme Court, ensuring judicial discipline and adherence to pre....
(1) Section 6A of DSPE Act is held to be not in force from date of its insertion i.e. 11.09.2003 – Once a law is declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Part-III of Constitution, then it ....
The court held that a lack of 'clear and present danger' can justify granting bail under UAPA, even when a prima facie case exists, emphasizing the importance of protecting fundamental rights.
Point of law : sanction under the UA(P)A granted after six months from the date of receipt of recommendation of the authority is not a valid sanction.
Exclusion of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is absolute for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, necessitating prima facie evidence for conside....
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
