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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more