Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN
Suman, W/o. Pawan Solanki – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
Munnuri Laxman, J.
1. All these Habeas Corpus Petitions have been filed challenging the detention and confirmation orders passed by the District Magistrate and State Government under the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 (herein after referred to as, “the Act”), whereby the corpuses were detained as preventive measure for one year.
2. The facts in each of the petitions are as follows:-
(A) Habeas Corpus Petition No.87/2024:
(i) The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur East has submitted a report dated 20.10.2023 to the District Magistrate, Jodhpur requesting him to initiate the proceedings for preventive detention against the detenue-Pawan Solanki. The report reflects that the detenue was involved in 17 FIRs registered at various Police Stations within the jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner of Police Jodhpur East for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 149, 212, 279, 224, 307, 323, 327, 336, 341, 353, 364-A, 379, 384, 386, 387, 392, 395, 420, 427, 436, 454, 504, 506, 34, 120-B of IPC, under Section 3 /25 of ARMS ACT and Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The detenue was acquitted in FIR No.203/2006, P.S. Mandore an
Preventive detention orders under the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act must comply with procedural requirements, including affording the detenu an opportunity for representation aft....
Preventive detention under the National Security Act requires clear justification of public order disturbances, adherence to procedural safeguards, and can be validated by prior criminal history.
The violation of a detenue's rights under Article 22(5) leads to the quashing of detention orders when there is inordinate delay in considering representations.
Point of Law : It is, thus, settled that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has to be based on objective material and any non-existent or misconceived or irrelevant consideration,....
The advisory board's functions under the Preventive Detention Act are not judicial, and its reports do not equate to judicial decisions, nor are grounds for detention required to be explicitly detail....
The court affirmed that detention orders remain valid even if representations are considered after confirmation, provided they are independently reviewed by the government.
Detention orders must provide independent consideration of a detainee's representation and inform them of rights to challenge, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Point of law : words 'shall afford him the earliest opoortunity of making a representation against the order' in Article 22(5) of the Constitution suggest that the obligation of the Government is to ....
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
