V C MOHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 01,2002
V. C. Mohan
Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India And Ors.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KUNDANBHAI DULABHAI SHAIKH V. DIST. MAGISTRATE,AHMEDABAD AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]RAJAMMAL V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDRA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NAGPUR DIVISION [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
R Hafeezur Rahman VS. State of Tamil Nadu [LAWS(MAD)-2003-11-145] [REFERRED TO]MOHANDAS K N S/O K S NARAYANAN VS. JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA COFEPOSA [LAWS(KER)-2017-7-257] [REFERRED TO]
JOIT KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
JAGADISH NARAYAN SINGH VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND 3 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
PARESH PURSHOTTAM GOR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-4-184] [REFERRED TO]
FAYAZ AHMAD PAUL VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-12-133] [REFERRED TO]
CHAYA GHOSHAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2003-8-37] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL MAJID TINWALLA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-4-124] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA ALIAS BABLOO SHRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-10-120] [REFERRED TO]
R HAFEEZUR RAHMAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2003-11-179] [REFERRED TO]
VIPUL DILIPBHSI DORDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-108] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK DADU MANGALE VS. A N ROY [LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
POONAM RAJEEV PATHAK VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI TIWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2003-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
KUNJI MOHAMMED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2006-7-102] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI SHANKAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2004-8-84] [REFERRED TO]
R HAFEEZUR RAHMAN VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2003-11-194] [REFERRED TO]
SUJITHA VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-10-130] [REFERRED TO]
SURESHBHAI SANKARBHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
VARSHA SHYAM AMLANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-103] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVESH RAJENDRABHAI DANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-9-144] [REFERRED TO]
USHA AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2006-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAM VEER SINGH TOMAR VS. STATE OF M.P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SULEMAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2002-3-39] [RERRED TO : (2002)2 JT(SC) 365 6]
PASCHAL ANTHONY D SOUZA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
JOINT KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-255] [REFERRED TO]
MASARAT ALAM BHATT VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2003-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
RANI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2002-6-92] [REFERRED TO]
NAZEEM ABDUL RAHIM SALAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-2022-12-81] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER ALIAS DANNY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2002-12-79] [REFRRED TO]
ANJANA RIKABCHAND MEHTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SHAKIL KHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
RAM VEER SINGH TOMAR VS. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2013-5-139] [REFERRED]
M P KUNHI MOHAMMAD ALIAS KUNJIPPA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2006-7-105] [REFERRED TO]
KALA CHAND BANERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2003-7-65] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRABHAI SANKAR BHAI PARMAR VS. STAT OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-2-67] [REFERRED TO]
CHOWDARAPU RAGHUNANDAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2002-3-7] [REFERRED]
VISHAL CHAUDHORY VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMAN SINDHI AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-8-112] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ANKIT ASHOK JALAN [LAWS(SC)-2019-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
SAJID DILAWAR KHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHIKANT RAMJIDAS CHAWLA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-8-188] [REFERRED TO]
FIROZ MOHOMEDALI MAMDANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
ADIL CHAUS S/O HAMAD CHAUS VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-2012-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
FAYAZ AHMAD PAUL VS. FAYAZ AHMAD PAUL [LAWS(J&K)-2019-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)While it is true that law Courts detaste the very concept of detention without trial and do not favour the same, but the constitutional sanction of preventive detention cannot in any way be decried having regard to the prevalent conditions - social and economic. The scheme as envisaged by the founding fathers, however, has its rigours as well and subject to the guarantees as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
(2.)Preventive detention admittedly is an 'invasion of personal liberty' and it is a duty cast on to the law Courts to satisfy itself in regard to the circumstances under which such a preventive detention has been ordered - in the event, however, the same does not conform to the requirements of the concept of justice as is available in the justice delivery system of the country, the law Courts would not shirk of its responsibility to provide relief to the person concerned. The guardian-angel of the Constitution stand poised with a responsibility to zealously act as a watchdog so that injustice does not occur : Let us not be understood to mean however that there ought to be any overzealousness since the same may lend assistance to a situation which is otherwise not compatible with social good and benefit.
(3.)Adverting at this stage to the facts of the matter, as is evident from the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging an order of detention dated 1st March, 2001 under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 it appears that the petitioner is presently confined in Central Prison, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and it is this detention which the petitioner contended is without the authority of law and constitute an infringement of his guaranteed fundamental rights.
(2.)Preventive detention admittedly is an 'invasion of personal liberty' and it is a duty cast on to the law Courts to satisfy itself in regard to the circumstances under which such a preventive detention has been ordered - in the event, however, the same does not conform to the requirements of the concept of justice as is available in the justice delivery system of the country, the law Courts would not shirk of its responsibility to provide relief to the person concerned. The guardian-angel of the Constitution stand poised with a responsibility to zealously act as a watchdog so that injustice does not occur : Let us not be understood to mean however that there ought to be any overzealousness since the same may lend assistance to a situation which is otherwise not compatible with social good and benefit.
(3.)Adverting at this stage to the facts of the matter, as is evident from the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging an order of detention dated 1st March, 2001 under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 it appears that the petitioner is presently confined in Central Prison, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and it is this detention which the petitioner contended is without the authority of law and constitute an infringement of his guaranteed fundamental rights.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.