AGL37.87▼ -0.24 (-0.01%)AIRLINK124.01▲ 2.24 (0.02%)BOP5.69▼ -0.13 (-0.02%)CNERGY3.76▲ 0.03 (0.01%)DCL8.53▲ 0.17 (0.02%)DFML40.47▼ -0.26 (-0.01%)DGKC87▲ 2.71 (0.03%)FCCL33.91▲ 1.35 (0.04%)FFBL66.26▲ 0.73 (0.01%)FFL10.19▲ 0.23 (0.02%)HUBC103.85▲ 0.32 (0.00%)HUMNL13.5▲ 0.23 (0.02%)KEL4.67▲ 0.23 (0.05%)KOSM6.85▼ -0.18 (-0.03%)MLCF38.78▲ 1.27 (0.03%)NBP60.7▲ 0.45 (0.01%)OGDC179.49▲ 7.36 (0.04%)PAEL24.98▲ 0.42 (0.02%)PIBTL5.7▼ -0.02 (0.00%)PPL151.9▲ 10.37 (0.07%)PRL22.74▲ 0 (0.00%)PTC14.98▲ 0.34 (0.02%)SEARL66.67▲ 2.13 (0.03%)TELE7.04▼ -0.09 (-0.01%)TOMCL35.54▼ -0.09 (0.00%)TPLP7.32▲ 0.06 (0.01%)TREET14.02▼ -0.13 (-0.01%)TRG50.9▼ -0.6 (-0.01%)UNITY26.39▼ -0.15 (-0.01%)WTL1.22▲ 0 (0.00%)

Indian SC declares preventive detention as black law

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

The Indian Supreme Court has declared preventive detention as a black law. In a ruling, the Supreme Court discussed the role and duty of the Advisory Boards constituted under the Preventive Detention Laws, on their capricious exercise of power while scrutinising the preventive detention order of the detaining authority passed in a routine and mechanical manner.

“Preventive detention being a draconian measure, any order of detention as a result of a capricious or routine exercise of powers must be nipped in the bud. It must be struck down at the first available threshold and as such, it should be the Advisory Board that must take into consideration all aspects not just the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authorities but whether such satisfaction justifies the detention of the detainee. The Advisory Board must consider whether the detention is necessary not just in the eyes of the detaining authority but also in the eyes of law,” the Bench Comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and ManojMisra said.

The aforesaid observation in the judgment authored by Justice JB Pardiwala came while deciding a plea preferred by a person who was detained by the Telangana Police on the charge of chain snatching alleging that such an act of the detainee breached the ‘public order’ in the locality making women unsafe.

Though, the court quashed the preventive detention order citing the reasoning that the activities of the detainee didn’t breach the ‘public order’ to justify his preventive detention, but underscored the role and importance of the Advisory Board while deciding the validity of the detention order passed by the detaining authority.

The court also questioned the role of the advisory board which acted casually and mechanically without scrutinising the order passed by the detaining authority.—INP

 

Related Posts