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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more