Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘Apprehension of bail being granted no ground for preventive detention' by J Venkatesan

‘Apprehension of bail being granted no ground for preventive detention' by J Venkatesan

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Jan 8, 2012   modified Modified on Jan 8, 2012

Right to life and liberty cannot be taken away sans due procedure, says Supreme Court

Observing that the right to life and liberty guaranteed to a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be taken away without following due procedure, the Supreme Court has held that mere apprehension of the authorities that an accused was likely to be released on bail was not a ground for passing preventive detention orders.

A three-judge Bench of Justices Altamas Kabir, S.S. Nijjar and J. Chelameswar while giving this ruling held that such prevention detention was “not justified.”

Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Kabir said: “Article 21 of the Constitution enjoins that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except, according to procedure established by law. Although the power is vested with the concerned authorities, unless the same are invoked and implemented in a justifiable manner, such an action of the detaining authority cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, such a detention order is an exception to the provisions of Articles 21 and 22 (2) of the Constitution.”

The Bench also rejected the contention that going by the previous conduct of the accused, viz. if he was a habitual offender or he was involved in several other cases earlier, he could be detained under preventive detention law.

The Bench said: “When the Courts thought it fit to release the accused on bail [as had been done in this case] in connection with the cases in respect of which he had been arrested, the mere apprehension that he was likely to be released on bail as a ground of his detention is not justified.”

The Bench said: “There is no live link between the earlier incidents and the incident in respect of which the detention order had been passed. As has been observed in various cases of similar nature by this Court, the personal liberty of an individual is the most precious and prized right guaranteed under the Constitution. The State has been granted the power to curb such rights under criminal laws as also under the laws of preventive detention, which, therefore, are required to be exercised with due caution as well as upon a proper appreciation of the facts as to whether such acts are in any way prejudicial to the interest and the security of the State and its citizens, or seek to disturb public law and order, warranting the issuance of such an order. An individual incident of an offence under the Indian Penal Code, however heinous, is insufficient to make out a case for issuance of an order of preventive detention.”

In the instant case, Yumman Ongbai Lembi Leima, the appellant, challenged the judgment of the Gauhati High Court upholding the order of preventive detention of her husband, Yumman Somendro @ Somo @ Tiken, under the National Security Act on January 31, 2011. The said detention order, approved by the Governor of Manipur on February 7, 2011, was passed on the ground that the detenu was likely to be released on bail by the normal criminal Courts in the near future. Allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the detention order and directed the appellant's husband to be released forthwith.


The Hindu, 8 January, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2783643.ece


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close