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 affirms detention order under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, emphasizing national security and public order.</h1> <h3>Borjahan Gorey Versus The State Of West Bengal</h3> The court upheld the detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, dismissing the challenge based on grounds of detention and ... - Issues:Challenge to detention order under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 based on grounds of detention and legal validity of detention order.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, issued by the District Magistrate, Howrah, on the basis of the grounds of detention. The petitioner, a laborer at a jute mill, was detained following incidents of public terror and violence as detailed in the grounds served to him. The petitioner's representation to the State Government and review by the Advisory Board confirmed the necessity of his detention. The petitioner's counsel argued that the grounds for detention could have been addressed under sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of resorting to preventive detention under the Act.The court rejected the argument that the detenu should have been proceeded against under the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of being detained under the Act. The judgment emphasized that the Act was enacted to address urgent preventive measures in the interest of national security and public order. The court clarified that the jurisdiction for preventive detention under the Act is distinct from criminal proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision to detain under the Act is based on subjective satisfaction regarding the likelihood of future prejudicial actions by the detenu, not solely on past criminal acts.The petitioner denied the allegations in the grounds of detention, claiming alibi for the incidents mentioned. However, the District Magistrate's counter-affidavit affirmed the detenu's involvement in anti-social activities, supporting the necessity of the detention order. The court upheld the District Magistrate's assessment and opinion, considering his knowledge of the local situation and the rejection of the petitioner's representation by the State Government and the Advisory Board. As there was no legal infirmity in the detention order and the facts affirmed by the District Magistrate were deemed true and relevant, the court dismissed the petition challenging the detention order.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition challenging the detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, based on the grounds of detention and the legal validity of the detention order. The court upheld the District Magistrate's decision and rejected the petitioner's claims of false allegations and insupportable detention order. The judgment highlighted the distinct nature of preventive detention under the Act compared to criminal proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
