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>Challenge to Preventive Detention Under National Security Act Dismissed</h1> <h3>Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 7 October, 1983</h3> The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging preventive detention under the National Security Act 1980. The petitioner's detention for inciting ... - Issues involved: Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus challenging preventive detention under National Security Act 1980.Reasoning for dismissal of the writ petition: The petitioner was detained under section 3 of the National Security Act 1980 for inciting communal hatred and violence, creating fear and tension in the town, leading to closure of schools and shops. The detention was deemed necessary to prevent further activities prejudicial to public order in a situation of grave communal disturbances. The grounds for detention were found relevant and essential for maintaining public order.Delay in forwarding representation: The petitioner argued that there was undue delay in forwarding his representation to the State Government. However, it was established that the District Magistrate promptly dealt with the representation despite facing urgent situations in other localities, ensuring no avoidable delay. The Court emphasized that promptness in dealing with representations should be assessed based on the circumstances of each case, not rigid timelines.Alleged violation of section 10 of the Act: The petitioner claimed a violation of section 10 as the Advisory Board did not consider his case within three weeks of detention. However, the Court clarified that the duty of the appropriate Government was to forward the relevant papers to the Advisory Board within three weeks, not to ensure consideration within that timeframe. The Advisory Board acted within the specified time limit of seven weeks for submitting its report.Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, the Court found no justification for interfering with the detention order against the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
