9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interference at the pre-detention stage based on common grounds with another case, release advice by Advisory Board, liberalization policy on gold import. Analysis: Interference at Pre-Detention Stage: The appeal arises from a High Court judgment that interfered at the pre-detention stage, despite the grounds of detention not being served yet. The High Court quashed the detention order citing common grounds with another case and release advice by the Advisory Board. The appellant argues that the High Court's interference was unwarranted and based on new grounds not applicable to preventive detention cases. The appellant contends that the High Court misunderstood the principles established for interference at the pre-detention stage and wrongly compared the grounds of detention with another case without factual basis. Release Advice by Advisory Board: The High Court considered the release advice given to another detainee by the Advisory Board as a ground for interference in the present case. However, the appellant asserts that the Advisory Board's decision for one detainee does not automatically apply to another and should not be a basis for interference at the pre-detention stage. The appellant argues that the Advisory Board's function is separate from the pre-detention process and should not influence judicial decisions. Liberalization Policy on Gold Import: The High Court's misinterpretation of the liberalization policy on gold import in relation to preventive detention is another issue raised in the appeal. The appellant argues that the High Court failed to establish a connection between the policy and preventive detention, rendering the grounds for interference at the pre-detention stage invalid. The appellant contends that the High Court's misunderstanding of the policy led to an erroneous judgment. Misuse of Power and Delay: The respondent argues that the detention order was misused for a wrong purpose and highlights a delay in passing the order. However, the Supreme Court finds these arguments lacking substance and determines that there was no misuse of power or undue delay in this case. Consequently, the Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's judgment and allows the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established legal principles in cases of preventive detention.
|
