TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds detention order under National Security Act, emphasizing individual assessments over joint charges</h1> <h3>YOGENDRA MURARI Versus STATE OF UP.</h3> The High Court dismissed the writ application challenging a detention order issued under the National Security Act, 1980. The Court upheld the detention ... - Issues:Challenge to detention order under Article 32 of the Constitution based on National Security Act, 1980. Grounds of detention related to multiple incidents. Allegations of delay in passing detention order. Allegations of discrimination in detaining petitioner while others were left free. Claims of relevant materials not considered by District Magistrate. Allegation of bail application not being opposed. Allegation of detention order passed to frustrate bail in criminal case. Claim that petitioner's representation was not considered by the Central Government.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the detention order under Article 32 of the Constitution, which was based on the National Security Act, 1980. The detention order was issued following three incidents, including attempted murders and a fatal shooting, which were deemed to have disturbed public order.2. The petitioner argued that the order of detention was flawed on several grounds. The petitioner claimed that only one incident out of the three mentioned in the grounds was connected to a public order problem, making the order invalid. Additionally, the petitioner alleged that the delay in passing the detention order was unreasonable.3. The High Court did not find it necessary to determine if all incidents mentioned in the grounds were related to public order issues, as one incident alone was deemed sufficient to justify the detention order. The Court also rejected the petitioner's claim of undue delay, emphasizing that each case must be considered individually.4. The petitioner contended that the detention order was passed to prevent the petitioner from being granted bail in a criminal case. However, the Court found no evidence to support this claim, stating that the District Magistrate had valid reasons to believe the petitioner posed a risk to public order if released on bail.5. The petitioner also raised concerns about discrimination, alleging that other co-accused individuals were not detained. The Court reasoned that each individual's role and potential future conduct must be assessed separately, and uniform decisions should not be made solely based on joint criminal charges.6. The petitioner claimed that relevant materials were not considered by the District Magistrate before passing the detention order. However, the Court found this claim unsubstantiated, as the detaining authority denied the allegation, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.7. The petitioner further argued that the Central Government did not consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation. The Court dismissed this claim, stating that the error in the date mentioned by the Central Government was clerical and clarified that the representation was indeed considered and rejected.8. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in any of the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the writ application challenging the detention order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
