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 Detention Under Public Safety Act, Emphasizes Grounds for Preventive Detention</h1> <h3>Machindar Shivaji Versus The King</h3> The appeal challenging the High Court's dismissal of an application for release from detention under S. 491, Criminal P.C. was dismissed. The Court upheld ... - Issues:- Appeal against order of High Court dismissing application for release from detention under S. 491, Criminal P.C.- Legality of detention under S. 2 (1) (a), C.P. and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948.- Ultra vires contention regarding detention for fomenting or inciting strikes.- Interpretation of Entry No. 1 of List II of Constitution Act and sufficiency of reasons for preventive detention.- Review of grounds of detention by an independent body.- Compliance with principles of natural justice in the absence of an Advisory Council.- Relevance of grounds communicated for detention based on affiliation with Communist Party of India.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging the High Court's dismissal of an application seeking release from detention under S. 491, Criminal P.C. The appellant contended that the detention order under S. 2 (1) (a) of the C.P. and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948 was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature. The Court examined the legality of the detention, specifically focusing on the provision allowing detention for fomenting or inciting strikes. While acknowledging the legislative power for preventive detention related to public order, the Court emphasized the need for a real and proximate connection to public order maintenance. The judgment highlighted the importance of the grounds communicated for detention, indicating their relevance to the legislative intent of preventing acts prejudicial to public safety and tranquility.Furthermore, the Court addressed the interpretation of Entry No. 1 of List II of the Constitution Act, emphasizing that the existence of reasons connected to public order is a prerequisite for preventive detention. The judgment clarified the distinction between legislative power and executive action in ordering detention, asserting that the executive's satisfaction suffices for such orders. The absence of a review mechanism by an independent body like an Advisory Council was noted, with the Court emphasizing the need for grounds to be rationally probative for detention under the Act.Regarding compliance with natural justice principles, the Court highlighted that while the Act lacked a review provision, the Government's grounds for detention must align with the legislation's objective. The judgment specifically examined the grounds related to the appellant's affiliation with the Communist Party of India. Despite the party not being outlawed, the Court deemed affiliation with a party advocating violence as potentially justifying preventive detention. The Court upheld the Government's satisfaction based on uncontradicted allegations of subversive activities, emphasizing the relevance of the grounds for the detention order. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed based on the sufficiency and relevance of the communicated grounds for detention.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
