FAZAL GHOSI, WAHID, AYAZ AHMAD AND RIAZ AHMAD versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

FAZAL GHOSI, WAHID, AYAZ AHMAD AND RIAZ AHMAD versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Detention orders under the National Security Act must be supported by pertinent material that demonstrates the likelihood of future prejudicial conduct; mere allegations and subjective assertions of the District Magistrate are insufficient if no relevant material exists. The absence of such material vitiates the detention orders.

Parties
Petitioner/appellant: Fazal Ghosi; Petitioner/appellant: Wahid; Petitioner/appellant: Ayaz Ahmad; Petitioner/appellant: Riaz Ahmad; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: Dalveer Bhandari; Respondent: Ms. Rachna Joshi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 June 1987
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition and Criminal Appeal / Final Decision Supreme Court
Outcome
petitions and appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Subjective Satisfaction, Public Order
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Subjective Satisfaction Public Order

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fazal Ghosi

Petitioner/appellant

Wahid

Petitioner/appellant

Ayaz Ahmad

Petitioner/appellant

Riaz Ahmad

Petitioner/appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Dalveer Bhandari

Respondent

Ms. Rachna Joshi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition and Criminal Appeal / Final Decision Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether detention orders under National Security Act were based on substantive material to justify subjective satisfaction for preventive detention
  2. 2 Whether subjective satisfaction under Section 3(2) or 3(3) of the National Security Act requires existence of relevant material

Ratio Decidendi

Detention orders under the National Security Act must be supported by pertinent material that demonstrates the likelihood of future prejudicial conduct; mere allegations and subjective assertions of the District Magistrate are insufficient if no relevant material exists. The absence of such material vitiates the detention orders.

Court Disposition

petitions and appeals allowed

Orders

  • Detention orders against all four detenus quashed
  • Detenus to be set at liberty unless their detention is required in connection with other cases