Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Preventive detention

ROSHNI DEVI versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

The detention order was quashed because the detaining authority failed to record material showing how the detenu's conduct prejudiced maintenance of public order; mere registration of three NDPS offences and an apprehension of reoffending, without showing how the narcotic posed danger to public health or without considering ordinary remedies such as bail cancellation, was insufficient to justify preventive detention under the Act of 1986.

Source excerpt

  • Preventive detention
  • Drug offender
  • Public order
  • Law and order
  • Subjective satisfaction
  • Extraneous considerations
Read case analysis
Preventive detention

DHANYA M versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

The detention order under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 was not sustainable because it did not show how the detenu's actions affected public order, failed to assign reasons justifying the exceptional power of preventive detention, and the State had not sought cancellation of bail in the criminal cases; therefore the preventive detention was unjustified and the detention order and the High Court judgment affirming it were set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Preventive detention
  • Public order
  • Bail
  • Kerala anti-social activities (prevention) act, 2007
  • Cancellation of bail
  • Habeas corpus
Read case analysis
Preventive detention

ARJUN S/O RATAN GAIKWAD versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

The detention was quashed because the material relied on (six Excise cases for sale of illicit liquor and two unnamed witness statements) did not substantiate that the appellant's activities affected public order rather than merely law and order; therefore the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was not supported and preventive detention was not justified.

Source excerpt

  • Detention order
  • Bootlegging
  • Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority
  • Maintenance of public order
  • Distinction between public order and law and order
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

JASEELA SHAJI versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Non-supply to the detenu of statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep which were relied upon by the Detaining Authority in forming its subjective satisfaction under COFEPOSA, together with the non-transmission and inordinate delay in deciding the detenu's representation due to callous conduct of jail authorities and unexplained delay by the Detaining Authority/Central Government, violated Article 22(5) and vitiated the detention order; accordingly the detention and related orders were quashed and the detenu ordered released.

Source excerpt

  • Article 22(5)
  • Non-supply of documents
  • Delay in representation
  • Cofeposa s.3(1)
  • Personal liberty
  • Prison authorities' duty
Read case analysis
Preventive detention

SHABNA ABDULLA versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that where a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court, on identical grounds and same material, concluded that non-supply of WhatsApp chats vitiated the detenues' Article 22(5) right, another Division Bench could not ignore that decision; a Bench disagreeing with a coordinate decision must refer the matter to a larger Bench. Accordingly the detention order dated 24 August 2021 and its confirmation dated 24 May 2022 were quashed and set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Detention order
  • Non-supply of documents
  • Article 22(5) representation
  • Judicial discipline and precedent
  • Reference to larger bench
Read case analysis
Preventive detention

AMEENA BEGUM versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

The Detention Order was quashed because the offences relied upon were separate stray acts affecting private individuals and did not demonstrate a live and proximate link to disturbance of public order; the Commissioner failed to differentiate between law-and-order and public-order matters and relied on extraneous and antecedent material (including past detention quashed by the High Court), and ordinary criminal law remedies were adequate; consequently the preventive detention under section 3(2) of the Telangana Act was unjustified and the detention order and the High Court judgment upholding…

Source excerpt

  • Public order vs law and order
  • Preventive detention standards
  • Judicial review of detention orders
  • Application of mind by detaining authority
  • Role of advisory board
  • Duration of detention
Read case analysis
Preventive detention

PESALA NOOKARAJU versus THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS

The Supreme Court held the High Court correctly declined interference: sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Act, 1986 concerns the period of delegation of power (not the period of detention); Article 22(4)(a) applies to the initial pre-Advisory-Board period of detention up to three months and does not prevent continuation after Government confirmation following Advisory Board report; the detaining authority had recorded subjective satisfaction based on credible material (FIRs and chemical analysis showing illicit liquor unfit and injurious to health) that the appellant’s activit…

Source excerpt

  • Section 3(2) andhra pradesh prevention of dangerous activities act, 1986
  • Article 22(4)(a) constitution of india
  • Habeas corpus
  • Public order vs. law and order
  • Interpretation of statutory delegation/proviso
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

PRAMOD SINGLA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

There is no operative conflict between Pankaj Kumar and Abdullah Kunhi because they apply to different authorities: Pankaj Kumar's mandate applies to the detaining authority while Abdullah Kunhi applies to the Central Government under COFEPOSA; in the present case both authorities acted within law—therefore the 60-day delay by the Central Government awaiting the Advisory Board did not invalidate the detention order—but because illegible foreign language documents were relied upon and a similarly placed co-detenue had been granted relief, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Representation under article 22(5)
  • Advisory board procedure
  • Cofeposa act s.3
  • Delay in consideration of representation
  • Illegible grounds of detention
  • Parity principle
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS versus BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN @ ANAND & ANR.

Refusal to supply, or supplying blurred or illegible copies of, the documents relied upon by the detaining authority deprives the detenu of the ability to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) and renders the detention order illegal; where the detenu alleges non-supply or illegibility and the fact remains uncontroverted on the record, the High Court rightly set aside the detention order even if the objection was not raised before the detaining authority.

Source excerpt

  • Article 22(5) right to make representation
  • Supply and legibility of documents relied upon by detaining authority
  • Procedural fairness in preventive detention
  • Judicial review under article 226
Read case analysis
Preventive detention

SUSHANTA KUMAR BANIK versus STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.

The detention order dated 12.11.2021 was quashed because (a) there was an almost five-month unexplained delay between the initial proposal (28.06.2021) and the detention order, which severed the necessary live and proximate link between alleged prejudicial activities and the preventive purpose, and (b) vital material was withheld from the detaining authority—specifically that the detenu had been released on bail in the NDPS cases—which vitiated the subjective satisfaction prerequisite for a valid detention order.

Source excerpt

  • Section 3(1) pit ndps act
  • Section 37 ndps act, 1985
  • Delay in detention orders
  • Withholding material facts from detaining authority
  • Subjective satisfaction for detention
  • Release on bail
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.