RAHUL CHATURVEDI, GAJENDRA KUMAR
Rangesh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Jail – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Gajendra Kumar, J.
1. Heard Shri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Chandrakesh Mishra and Shri Abhishek Mishra Advocates, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Patanjali Mishra and Sri Satyendra Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents (1) Superintendent, District Jail, Azamgarh, (2) District Magistrate, Azamgarh and (3) State of Uttar Pradesh and Mr. Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel representing Central Government.
2. Pleadings between the contesting parties were exchanged and the matter is ripe for final submissions.
3. After hearing the counsels for the contesting parties on the earlier occasion on 21.04.2023, the Court has allowed the petition, directing the authorities to release the petitioner forthwith, if not wanted in any other case, though detailed judgment would follow. The operative portion of our order reads thus :
Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Baby Devassy Chully alias Bobby Vs. Union of India and others
Banka Sneha Sheela Vs. The State of Telangana and others
Dr Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966) 1 SCR 709
Inamul Haq Engineer Vs. Superintendent, Division/District Jail, Azamgarh
Jagan Nath Biswas Vs. The State of W.B
Jitendra Nath Biswas vs. The State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 1215
K.K. Saravana Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Kamarunnissa Vs. Union of India and another
Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal
M. Ahamedkutty Vs. Union of India
Mallada K Sri Ram vs. Stat of Telangana & Ors.
Md. Sahabuddin Vs. The District Magistrate 24 Parganas and others
Mehrunissa v. State of Maharashtra
Mohd. Zakir v. Delhi Administration
Mohinuddin @ Moin Master Vs. District Magistrate, Beed and others
Mrs. T. Devaki Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others
Pankaj Vs. State of U.P. and others
Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of W.B.
Rabindra Kumar Ghosel vs. State of W.B.
Raj Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar And Ors. AIR 1983 SC 320
Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu And Another
Ram Kripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. And others
Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar and another
Sant Singh Vs. District Magistrate and others
Shyamal Chakraborty v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta
Sk. Abdul Munnaf vs. State of W.B. 1974 0 Supreme(SC) 118
SK. Serajul Vs. State of West Bengal
State of U.P. vs. Kamal Kishore Saini
The detention order was quashed due to procedural violations and lack of connection between the detenu's past conduct and the necessity for detention under the National Security Act.
Preventive detention under the National Security Act requires subjective satisfaction of the authorities that the detenue is likely to disturb public order based on gathered evidence and present cond....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that preventive detention under the National Security Act must be based on specific and justifiable grounds, and the detaining authority must ensur....
The detention order under the National Security Act was based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, considering the likelihood of the detainee being released from custody in the ....
Detention order - The posting of the provocative message through his Facebook wall, as referred to herein-above, strikes at the root of the State’s authority and is directly connected to ‘public orde....
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.