Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH KOHIMA BENCH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Thangtinlen Changsan – Appellant
Versus
State of Nagaland, represented by the Chief Secretary, Nagaland, Kohima – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. preventive detention requires valid reasoning. (Para 5 , 8 , 13) |
| 2. contention regarding procedural adherence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. court's view on preventive detention requirements. (Para 18 , 19 , 24) |
| 4. previous conduct is key for detention orders. (Para 35 , 42 , 46) |
| 5. court quashes illegal detention order. (Para 51 , 53) |
JUDGMENT :
M. Choudhury, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner, brother of a detenu named Smti. Ch. Lamkhonei Khongsai, who has been detained in the Central Jail, Dimapur pursuant to an Order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Political Branch, Home Department [the respondent no. 2] in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section [1] of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [‘the PIT-NDPS Act’, for short]. Challenges are also made to two Orders, dated 19.03.2025 & dated 20.06.2025, passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. By the Order dated 19.03.2025, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland [the respondent no. 1] on behalf of the Sta
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
