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>Supreme Court affirms High Court decision on National Security Act detention order</h1> <h3>State of U.P. Versus Kamal Kishore Saini</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the detention order under the National Security Act, 1980, citing that the incidents did not ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the detention order under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.2. Fair and reasonable opportunity for the detenus to make an effective representation.3. Distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order.'4. Non-supply of relevant documents to the detenus.5. Non-consideration of relevant materials by the detaining authority.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Detention Order:The appeal challenged the High Court's quashing of the detention order under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The High Court found that the incidents cited did not affect public order but were confined to law and order issues. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, emphasizing that the incidents did not disturb the even tempo of the life of the community.2. Fair and Reasonable Opportunity:The detenus contended that they were not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to make an effective representation as required under Section 10 of the National Security Act. They argued that they were not supplied with relevant documents, including statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which formed part of the charge-sheet. The High Court agreed, finding that the non-supply of these documents vitiated the detention order.3. Distinction between 'Law and Order' and 'Public Order':The High Court held that the incidents cited in grounds 1 and 2 pertained to law and order and not public order. The Supreme Court affirmed this, citing precedents like Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, which distinguish between acts affecting individuals (law and order) and those affecting the community at large (public order).4. Non-supply of Relevant Documents:The High Court found that the detenus were not supplied with vital documents such as statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which were essential for making an effective representation. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, stating that the non-supply of these documents infringed the detenus' right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.5. Non-consideration of Relevant Materials:The High Court noted that relevant materials, including an application by co-accused and statements in bail applications, were not placed before the detaining authority. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that all vital materials must be placed before the detaining authority to enable proper subjective satisfaction. The failure to do so rendered the detention order invalid.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's findings that the detention order was invalid due to the non-supply of relevant documents and non-consideration of vital materials. The Court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between 'law and order' and 'public order' and the necessity of providing detenus with all relevant documents to ensure a fair opportunity for representation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
