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 National Security Act detention orders, emphasizing 'public order' over 'law and order'. Preventive detention justified despite ongoing criminal proceedings.</h1> <h3>Alijan Mian And Another Versus District Magistrate, Dhanbad</h3> The court dismissed the petitions challenging detention orders under the National Security Act. It upheld the detaining authority's subjective ... - Issues Involved:1. Detention orders while petitioners were in jail.2. Parallel criminal proceedings and preventive detention.3. Distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'.4. Absence of allegations in FIRs regarding breach of public order.Summary:1. Detention Orders While Petitioners Were in Jail:The petitioners challenged the detention orders dated 2nd December 1982, issued by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioners contended that since they were already in jail, there was no apprehension of breach of public order. However, the court noted that the detaining authority was aware of their jail custody and was satisfied that if released on bail, they would indulge in activities prejudicial to public order.2. Parallel Criminal Proceedings and Preventive Detention:The petitioners argued that the incidents leading to their detention were already subject to criminal proceedings, making preventive detention unnecessary. The court clarified that preventive detention is anticipatory and does not relate to an offense, unlike criminal proceedings which punish past offenses. The court cited K.M. Chokshi v. State of Gujarat, emphasizing that criminal prosecution is not an absolute bar to preventive detention if the detaining authority has subjective satisfaction of its necessity.3. Distinction Between 'Law and Order' and 'Public Order':The petitioners contended that the incidents pertained to 'law and order' rather than 'public order'. The court referred to Ram Ranjan Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal, explaining that the distinction lies in the degree and extent of the act's impact on society. The court found that the incidents, involving bomb-throwing in a public gathering and gunfire in a residential area, disturbed public tranquility and thus constituted a breach of public order.4. Absence of Allegations in FIRs Regarding Breach of Public Order:The petitioners argued that the FIRs did not mention any apprehension of breach of public order. The court noted that the detaining authority had additional material, including a supervision note from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, which justified the apprehension of breach of public order. The absence of specific allegations in the FIRs did not invalidate the detention orders.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the contentions raised. The detaining authority's subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of preventive detention was upheld, and the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' was reaffirmed. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
