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>Supreme Court affirms legality of detention order under National Security Act</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in a case challenging detention under the National Security Act. The High Court found no delay in ... - Issues:Detention under National Security Act challenged in High Court - Delay in considering representation by Central Government - Delay in issuing detention order - Non-application of mind by detaining authority.Analysis:1. The detenu's wife challenged the detention order under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition. The appeal to the Supreme Court raised concerns about delay in considering the detenu's representation by the Central Government, delay in issuing the detention order, and non-application of mind by the detaining authority.2. The High Court examined the timeline of events related to the detenu's representation and concluded that there was no delay in considering the representation by the Central Government. The Court detailed the sequence of actions taken by the Central Government upon receiving the detenu's representation, emphasizing that there was no unjustifiable delay in the decision-making process.3. The High Court also addressed the issue of delay in issuing the detention order. It analyzed the steps taken by the Central Government in processing the representation and found no laches in disposing of the detenu's representation expeditiously. The Court highlighted the swift actions taken by the authorities in considering and rejecting the representation.4. Regarding the contention of non-application of mind by the detaining authority, the High Court affirmed that the detaining authority had thoroughly examined all documents and grounds before issuing the detention order. The Court found no evidence to support the claim of lack of application of mind and confirmed that proper scrutiny was conducted before the detention order was issued.5. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reasoning on all grounds raised in the appeal. It concurred with the High Court's analysis that there was no delay in considering the detenu's representation, no unjustified delay in issuing the detention order, and no lack of application of mind by the detaining authority. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the legality of the detention order under the National Security Act.This judgment provides a detailed examination of the procedural aspects and legal considerations involved in challenging a detention order under the National Security Act. The courts meticulously reviewed the timelines, actions taken by the authorities, and the grounds for detention to ensure that the detenu's rights were upheld and due process was followed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
