9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Validity of detention under sec. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 based on alleged offences causing communal riots and fear in public order. Justification of detention solely on the grounds of possibility of bail and potential prejudicial activities. Validity of Detention under sec. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980: The detention order of Arun Aggarwal by the District Magistrate, Meerut under sec. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 was challenged in a writ petition. The order cited five grounds of detention, all related to offences allegedly committed by Arun Aggarwal on May 19, 1987, leading to communal riots and spreading fear in Meerut City. However, it was noted that the communal riots in Meerut did not directly result from the incidents attributed to Arun Aggarwal on May 19, 1987. The detention order was further questioned for its reliance on the detenu's attempt to secure bail as a basis for detention, without clear evidence of potential prejudicial activities upon release. Justification of Detention based on Possibility of Bail: The primary issue raised was whether the detention of Arun Aggarwal could be justified solely on the grounds of his attempt to secure bail and the possibility of being released. The State sought to justify the detention order by referring to a previous court decision, Alijan Mian case, where detention was upheld based on the likelihood of the detenu engaging in prejudicial activities if released on bail. However, subsequent decisions emphasized the need for credible information or cogent reasons indicating potential prejudicial actions upon release, rather than mere apprehensions of the detaining authority. The court highlighted that the detention order lacked material demonstrating that the detenu, if released on bail, would engage in activities prejudicial to public order, leading to the quashing of the detention order. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the detention order of Arun Aggarwal, emphasizing the necessity for concrete evidence or reasons indicating potential prejudicial activities upon release, rather than mere apprehensions or the possibility of securing bail. The decision underscored the importance of justifying preventive detention under the National Security Act based on specific, credible information to protect fundamental freedoms and uphold the rule of law.
|
