Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated because some grounds were vague, some were non-existing or false, and the detenu was thereby denied an effective opportunity to make a representation.
Analysis: Preventive detention rests on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and the Court does not sit in appeal over the sufficiency of the material. Even so, the grounds must be precise, relevant, and real so that the detenu can meaningfully answer them before the Advisory Board. Grounds which are vague and indefinite fail to furnish a genuine opportunity of representation, and grounds which are non-existing or demonstrably false may vitiate the order when they have formed part of the basis of detention. On the facts, some grounds lacked particulars, one ground rested on an admitted factual mistake regarding a pending case in which the detenu had already been acquitted, and the remaining grounds were inadequately explained. The detention thus suffered from both vagueness and reliance on defective grounds.
Conclusion: The detention order was illegal and unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to release.
Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, the grounds must be definite, relevant, and factually real so that the detenu may make an effective representation; if material grounds are vague, non-existing, or false, the detention order is vitiated.