By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday criticised the Telangana police for utilizing preventive detention legislation on the drop of a hat and mentioned whereas the nation celebrates ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’ to commemorate 75 years of Independence, some law enforcement officials are curbing the freedom and freedom of individuals.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta made the remark whereas quashing a detention order handed towards the husband of a detainee.
“We are persuaded to remind the authorities in the state of Telangana that the drastic provisions of the Act are not to be invoked at the drop of a hat. While the Nation celebrates Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav to commemorate 75 years of independence from foreign rule, some police officers of the said state who are enjoined with the duty to prevent crimes and are equally responsible for protecting the rights of citizens as well, seem to be oblivious of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution and are curbing the liberty and freedom of the people. The sooner this trend is put to an end, the better,” the bench mentioned.
The high courtroom mentioned preventive detention, conceived as a rare measure by the framers of India’s Constitution, has been rendered bizarre with its reckless invocation through the years as if it had been obtainable to be used even within the bizarre course of proceedings.
“To unchain the shackles of preventive detention, it is important that the safeguards enshrined in our Constitution, particularly under the ‘golden triangle’ formed by Articles 14, 19 and 21, are diligently enforced,” the bench mentioned.
While Article 14 pertains to equality earlier than legislation, Article 19 pertains to freedom of speech and expression, and Article 21 gives India’s residents proper to life and private liberty.
All these are basic rights assured below the Constitution to the residents of the nation.
The apex courtroom mentioned whereas deciding on the legality of preventive detention orders, the courts are required to make sure the order is predicated on the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority.
Referring to the moment case, the highest courtroom mentioned the authority involved had didn’t differentiate between offences that create a “law and order” scenario and people who are likely to prejudicially have an effect on “public order”.
It mentioned Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act 1986 is a rare statute.
The legislation, it mentioned, shouldn’t have been invoked when bizarre felony legislation supplied adequate means to deal with the apprehensions resulting in the impugned detention order.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday criticised the Telangana police for utilizing preventive detention legislation on the drop of a hat and mentioned whereas the nation celebrates ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’ to commemorate 75 years of Independence, some law enforcement officials are curbing the freedom and freedom of individuals.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta made the remark whereas quashing a detention order handed towards the husband of a detainee.
“We are persuaded to remind the authorities in the state of Telangana that the drastic provisions of the Act are not to be invoked at the drop of a hat. While the Nation celebrates Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav to commemorate 75 years of independence from foreign rule, some police officers of the said state who are enjoined with the duty to prevent crimes and are equally responsible for protecting the rights of citizens as well, seem to be oblivious of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution and are curbing the liberty and freedom of the people. The sooner this trend is put to an end, the better,” the bench mentioned.googletag.cmd.push(operate() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );
The high courtroom mentioned preventive detention, conceived as a rare measure by the framers of India’s Constitution, has been rendered bizarre with its reckless invocation through the years as if it had been obtainable to be used even within the bizarre course of proceedings.
“To unchain the shackles of preventive detention, it is important that the safeguards enshrined in our Constitution, particularly under the ‘golden triangle’ formed by Articles 14, 19 and 21, are diligently enforced,” the bench mentioned.
While Article 14 pertains to equality earlier than legislation, Article 19 pertains to freedom of speech and expression, and Article 21 gives India’s residents proper to life and private liberty.
All these are basic rights assured below the Constitution to the residents of the nation.
The apex courtroom mentioned whereas deciding on the legality of preventive detention orders, the courts are required to make sure the order is predicated on the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority.
Referring to the moment case, the highest courtroom mentioned the authority involved had didn’t differentiate between offences that create a “law and order” scenario and people who are likely to prejudicially have an effect on “public order”.
It mentioned Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act 1986 is a rare statute.
The legislation, it mentioned, shouldn’t have been invoked when bizarre felony legislation supplied adequate means to deal with the apprehensions resulting in the impugned detention order.
