Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
ABDUL MOIN, BABITA RANI
Sunil Kumar Gupta Alias Sunil Chain through His Son Akshit Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. habeas corpus petition maintainability. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. judicial precedent on rights in habeas corpus. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 3. provisions under nsa must balance public order and individual liberty. (Para 12 , 14 , 35) |
| 4. distinction between 'public order' and 'law & order'. (Para 19 , 21 , 57) |
| 5. timely consideration of representation against detention. (Para 32 , 47 , 49) |
| 6. validity of detention orders for individuals already in custody. (Para 55 , 56) |
| 7. criminal history may validly influence detention orders. (Para 62 , 64) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Advocate assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Tripathi, Advocate & Sri Raghav Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri S.N. Tilahari, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 2 to 4.
2. The Apex Court, vide order dated 18.12.2025, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 20664 of 2025; Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India and Ors. has requested the High Court to decide the issue of maintainability of Habeas Corpus Writ Petition within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order which order has been rec
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.
Preventive detention requires a clear demonstration of how actions disturb public order, not merely law and order, with timely issuance reflecting genuine concern for community safety.
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.
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....
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.
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....
The detenue's right to make an effective representation against preventive detention is guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Failure to supply the material forming the basis o....
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
