Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Kumar Birla, Nalin Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Kapil Kasana – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Shri Nigmendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prem Narain Rai, learned counsel for the Union of India and Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
2. Present Habeas Corpus Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking following reliefs:-
"a). issue writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty after setting aside the order dated 4.3.2024 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent no.5, namely, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad in exercise of his power under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act, 1980.
b) issue such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the case.
c). to award the cost to the petitioner."
3. The aforesaid reliefs have been prayed for on the basis of following main grounds :
(i) that the impugned detention order is a non-speaking order and as such not sustainable under law.
(ii) that no subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad while passing the impugned detention order.
(iii) that there may be proble
Preventive detention requires clear, compelling reasons linked to public order; mere apprehensions are insufficient.
If a person is in custody and there is no imminent possibility of his being released, the rule is that the power of preventive detention should not be exercised.
In case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has reason believe on the ....
In case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has reason believe on the ....
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 orders are invalid if issued against individuals already in custody, as they lack grounds for action deemed necessary to prevent prejudicial behavior.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the nature, scale, and gravity of an act and its impact on public order in invoking the detention law under the National Security....
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
