Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, November 23, 2024

Court Has No Jurisdiction To Alter Period Of Detention Under Preventive Detention Law, Article 21

Posted in: Criminal Law
Tue, Nov 14, 23, 12:48, 1 Year ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 9729
Sreeja vs Kerala ordered the release of a woman who was detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities considering the humanitarian ground that her daughter is at an advanced stage of her pregnancy and therefore urgently needed assistance and care of close family members.

While displaying the highest level of paramount importance for human rights, one feels most proud to note that the Kerala High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Sreeja vs State of Kerala & Ors in WP (Crl.) No. 971 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2023:KER:68791 that was pronounced as recently as on November 8, 2023 has ordered the release of a woman who was detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter KAAPA Act) considering the humanitarian ground that her daughter is at an advanced stage of her pregnancy and therefore urgently needed assistance and care of close family members.

It must be mentioned here that the Division Bench of Kerala High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Hon’ble Mr Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen in its most sagacious judgment pointed out most emphatically that notwithstanding statutory limitations, the Constitutional Court could, in exceptional circumstances, recognize the right under Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring life and liberty, and order the release of an individual detained in custody. It is worth mentioning here that the petitioner who being a lady with her daughter being in an advanced stage of pregnancy had pleaded that there was no one to care for her daughter and child and had therefore appealed for the modification of her detention period on humanitarian grounds.

It must also be mentioned here that the Kerala High Court clarified that this decision is not based on any specific law but on the superior fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Kerala High Court was considering a petition by a woman who was facing over 19 criminal cases that were covered primarily under Section 406 pertaining to criminal breach of trust and Section 420 pertaining to cheating of the Indian Penal Code.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice A Muhamed Mustaque for a Division Bench of Kerala High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Ms Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The issue that arises in this writ petition after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader is that whether this Court can modify the period of detention of the detenue under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short the KAAPA Act).

As we see, the Bench then spells out in para 2 disclosing that:
Having gone through the impugned order, we find no reason to interfere with this order, inasmuch as the same was issued to secure the public order. The petitioner herein is a lady, who is involved in more than 19 cases. All most all the cases of the petitioner are related under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

On the one hand, we find that the Bench is very forthright in holding in para 3 that:
When a person indulge in anti-social activity, which has become a pattern, then it becomes an issue related to public order. In that sense, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is a lady and her daughter is in her advanced stage of pregnancy. It is further submitted that an order may be issued to release her to take care of her daughter and child. It is in this context, the question relating to the modification of the detention order arises for consideration before this Court.

Most significantly and so also most commendably and most forthrightly and so also most remarkably, on the other hand, we then see that the Bench minces just no words to state in no uncertain terms most forcefully in para 4 mandating that:
The learned Government Pleader placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kumaran v. District Collector reported in 2015(4) KLT 911, submits that the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the period of detention under Section 3 of the KAAPA. The learned Government Pleader is justified in making such submission as normally the Court cannot interfere with the detention order of the detenue under Section 3(1) of KAAPA Act. However, nothing prevents the constitutional Court from recognising the right under Article 21 under the peculiar circumstances in which an individual is placed.

In exceptional circumstances, the recognition invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court can order release of such person who is detained in custody. This order is not with reference to invoking statutory provision but with reference to superior right available to such person on a justifiable ground under Article 21 of the Constitution to ensure life and liberty of such citizens and others. It is pleaded before us that nobody is there to take care of her daughter and child and on humanitarian grounds, the period of detention be modified.

Finally and far most significantly, we observe that the Bench then concludes by holding most brilliantly and most sagaciously in para 5 that:
The documents produced before this Court establishes that the daughter is in her advanced stage of pregnancy and she needs care and protection from her mother, who is the detenue. The detenue had already undergone substantial period of detention and further period of detention will expire on 15.12.2023. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the detenue shall be released from the jail on 14.11.2023, without serving further period of detention nearly one month.

The Writ Petition Criminal is disposed of accordingly.

All said and done, we thus see most distinctly that in this leading case considering the humanitarian ground of detenue’s daughter’s advanced pregnancy that certainly cannot be ever glossed over and the detenue’s claim that there is nobody to take care of her daughter and child, the Court while rising to the occasion and displaying the paramount respect for legal rights and human rights on humanitarian grounds deems it fit to intervene and thus decided to modify the period of detention which has to be indubitably lauded as it was the crying need of the hour also!

We also cannot lose sight of the irrefutable fact that the documents provided also confirmed the daughter’s advanced pregnancy and since the detenue had already undergone a substantial period of detention and so the Court deemed it fit to order her release from jail one month before the scheduled expiration of the further period of detention which has to be applauded and admired by one and all! As a consequence, we thus see that this writ petition was disposed of accordingly!

There can definitely be no gainsaying that we have to concede that the Kerala High Court while conceding graciously that the Court lacked jurisdiction to alter the period of detention under Section 3 of the KAAPA Act and acknowledging this limitation simultaneously but underscored that, in exceptional circumstances, the Constitutional Court can recognize the right under Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring life and liberty and order release.

Of course, there can be no quibbling with what the Kerala High Court has ruled here and we have to acknowledge, applaud and accept that such rulings are the crying need of the hour and all the Courts in India and all the Judges in India must definitely emulate such most sagacious and superb judgments which accord sacrosanct human rights and constitutional rights the highest priority which certainly stands paramount above which there cannot be anything else! Very rightly so! No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top