1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court rules petitioner's detention unjustified under Preventive Detention Act as actions didn't threaten public order.</h1> The court found that the petitioner's detention under the Preventive Detention Act was not justified as his actions, although reprehensible, did not pose ... - Issues: Detention under Preventive Detention Act based on grounds not related to public order.Analysis:1. The petitioner was detained under Section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act to prevent him from acting prejudicially to public order. The detention order was made promptly without undue delay in processing his case as required by the Act.2. The grounds furnished to the petitioner included anti-social activities like assault and harassment of individuals in specific instances. The petitioner argued that these acts were directed against individuals and did not amount to subversion of public order, citing previous court cases to support this contention.3. The court referred to previous judgments to distinguish between acts affecting individuals and those disturbing public order. It emphasized that the potential impact on society determines whether an act constitutes a breach of law and order or a disturbance of public order. The judgment highlighted the importance of assessing the degree of harm and its effect on the community in each case.4. A comparison was drawn with other cases where instances of rioting were deemed to disturb public order, while assaults on individuals were considered separate acts not affecting the community at large. In the present case, the petitioner's actions were directed at specific individuals and did not create a general disturbance in society.5. The court concluded that despite the reprehensible nature of the petitioner's conduct, it did not pose a threat to public order. Therefore, the detention order was not justified, and the petitioner was entitled to be released immediately unless required for another legitimate reason.6. The judgment emphasized the nuanced distinction between individual acts and those impacting public order, highlighting the need to evaluate each case based on its specific circumstances. The decision to release the petitioner was based on the lack of evidence showing a potential breach of public order due to his actions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
