Skip to main content

Detention without trial curtails liberty, rights: SC

A person taken to custody under preventive detention without trial cannot be kept in continuous confinement as it curtails his liberty and civil rights, the Supreme Court has said.

"Normally, a person who is detained under the provisions of the Act is without facing trial which in other words amounts to curtailment of his liberties and denial of civil rights. In such cases, whether continuous detention of such person is necessary or not, is to be assessed and reviewed from time to time," a bench of justices Ranjana Prakash Desai (since retired) and N V Ramana said.

Taking into consideration these factors, the Legislature has specifically provided the mechanism 'Advisory Board' to review the detention of a person.

The court's ruling came while setting aside the detention order of a person under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

The bench said passing a detention order for a period of 12 months at a stretch, without proper review, is deterrent to the rights of the detenu and that the order of Andhra Pradesh government directing detention for the maximum period of 12 months straightaway cannot be sustained in law.

The court passed the order allowing the appeal filed by the wife one Cherukuri Narendra Chowdari, who was detained on the preventive detention order of collector and district magistrate of East Godavari district in Andhra Pradesh on September 20, 2013.

Chowdari was detained on the ground that he has got all the attributes to be called as a 'goonda' as envisaged under the Act.

The order had mentioned that he was involved in several cases of theft of government and private properties as well as cases of destruction of public properties and his anti-social activities are harmful to the society and general public and referred 11 cases registered against him.

His wife had approached the apex court challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court order alleging that her husband has been unauthorisedly detained and the detention order passed was illegal and sought his release.

Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/detention-without-trial-curtails-liberty-rights-sc_931660.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more