RAHUL BHARTI
Gurdit Singh @ Prince @ Pindi S/o Bhopinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAHUL BHARTI, J.
1. The preventive detention jurisdiction is loaded with a very heavy onus resting not only upon the law enforcement authority which intends to seek preventive detention of a person under a given law but also upon the authorities vested with the jurisdiction to consider and pass a preventive detention order to denude a person of his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any omission of said onus bears an inviting risk of nullifying of a preventive detention of a person detained.
2. The present case is one in which the preventive detention order making authority has fallen in omission to discharge the said onus by not bearing in mind the constitutional safeguards attending passing of a preventive detention order against the petitioner as envisaged by the constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel vs. Union of India and Others, 1994 (4) SCC 51.
3. The petitioner is a 28 years old person who has come to question his preventive detention effected under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in shor
Amir Shad Khan vs. L. Hmingliana and Others
Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India and Others
Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel vs. Union of India and Others
State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Smt. Sushila Mafatlal Shah and Others
The right of a person subjected to preventive detention to make a representation against the detention order to the authority passing the order, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of In....
(1) Order of preventive detention under NSA does not overlap with penal provisions under FSSA as it is not in lieu of that but is rather in addition to that.(2) Life of order passed by District Magis....
The failure to consider a detenue's representation against preventive detention violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention invalid.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the detenu's right to make a representation to the detaining authority, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, and the conse....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.