SC orders release of law student from preventive detention under NSA
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court recently directed the immediate release of a 24-year-old law student hailing from Madhya Pradesh who had been under preventive detention for nearly a year under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), after noting that detention of the appellant, was 'wholly untenable'.
The top court ordered that the petitioner (appellant) Annu alias Aniket, be released immediately from Central Jail, Bhopal, if he was not required in any other criminal case.
A two-judge vacation bench of the top court, led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vinod Chandran observed that the grounds mentioned in the order, which include disruption of law and order did not satisfy the requirements of Section 3(2) of the NSA.
'We are of the view that the reasons for which he has been taken into preventive detention does not satisfy the requirement of Sub Section(2) of Section 3 of the NSA, 1980. Preventive detention of the appellant, therefore, becomes wholly untenable', the court said. Section 3(2) empowers the Union and state governments to order preventive detention of a person.
The petitioner, had been booked following an altercation on June 14, 2024, at a university campus in Betul, after he allegedly clashed with a professor.
Following this, an FIR was filed for attempt to murder and other offences against Annu, forcing him to surrender on June 16 and was placed in judicial custody. While in jail, the NSA detention order was issued against him. This order was later confirmed and extended every three months.
The Court noted that the detention order had been extended four times, with the last extension valid till July 12, 2025.
After hearing Annu's appeal, the apex court said, 'At the most, these are all issues of law and order. 'Public order' is something bigger'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC turns down plea for exclusive control of Mahabodhi temple to Buddhists
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea that sought handing over exclusive control of the Mahabodhi temple in Bihar's Bodh Gaya to Buddhists, and asked the petitioner to approach the high court. The Mahabodhi temple in Bodh Gaya, Bihar. (File Photo) The plea, filed by lawyer and former Maharashtra minister Sulekha Narayan Kumbhare, challenged the constitutional validity of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, which entrusted a nine-member committee with the temple's management, of which a majority are Hindus. Refusing to entertain the petition, a bench of justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran, said, 'How can we issue mandamus? You please approach the high court. This is not maintainable under Article 32.' The petition claimed that the management of the Mahabodhi temple should be with the Buddhists and the Act was unconstitutional for violating the right of Buddhists to profess their religion and manage their religious institutions. 'Inclusion of members in the committee who are non-Buddhists i.e. Hindus is violative of protections guaranteed to the Buddhist citizens of India and the Lord Buddha himself guaranteed under Articles 19 (right to fundamental freedoms), 21 (life and liberty), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (right to administer institutions), 28 and 29 (minority rights) of the Constitution of India,' the petition stated. Senior advocate Ravindra Laxman Khapre pointed out that due to mismanagement and indifference to the temple, the sacred Bodhi tree at the site is in danger of decay, as found out by a committee of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The bench dismissed the petition allowing the petitioner to raise these issues before the high court. 'We are not inclined to entertain the petition. Liberty is granted to approach the high court.' While the definition of Hindus includes Buddhists as well, the religious community was recognised as a minority in 1993 under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. The petition, filed by advocate Jaydip Pati stated that the Mahabodhi temple is the holiest Buddhist shrine in India and is also a World Heritage site since the year 2002, which is not under the exclusive management of Buddhists. It said, 'Though Buddhists are defined as being part of Hindus, their independent right to profess their religion is also recognized. The said recognition therefore confers rights of Buddhists to profess their religion as per their own choice.' The petitioner argued that the surroundings and vicinity of the area, including the area of the temple, which is now under the possession of the Bodh Gaya Temple Committee used to be under control of Lord Buddha. 'In effect, the idol of Lord Buddha is the owner of the land. It is therefore submitted that the ownership of the site is vested in Lord Buddha as a juristic person.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
MoEF trying to 'subvert' FRA: Over 90 forest rights groups writes to PM
Over 90 forest rights groups have written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, alleging that the Union environment ministry is attempting to "subvert" the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and demanding that Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav clarify his reported statement that the "FRA leads to forest degradation." PTI reached out to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for comment. A response is awaited. The groups, comprising Chhattisgarh Bachao Andolan and Himdhara Environment Research and Action Collective of Himachal, among others, said in their June 28 letter, copies of which have been sent to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) and the ministries of Environment, Tribal Affairs and Social Justice, that Yadav, in a statement published in a newspaper on June 5, "cited titles granted under the FRA as a reason for forest degradation." They called the statement "false, misleading, legally untenable and an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the FRA." They alleged that it is part of a "consistent series of subversion" by the environment ministry, which, along with the forest bureaucracy, has "stiffly resisted and disrupted" the implementation of the FRA for the last 16 years. The groups pointed to a 2009 report submitted by the ministry to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which said that the FRA had assigned rights to protect approximately 40 million hectares of community forest resources to village-level democratic institutions and that other forest-related laws needed to be fine-tuned in light of the Act. Citing data presented by Yadav in the Lok Sabha on August 7, 2023, the groups alleged that while the minister blamed the FRA, tribals and other forest rights holders for forest degradation, he "conveniently overlooked" the fact that the ministry itself allowed the illegal diversion of over 3 lakh hectares of forest land since 2008 for non-forest activities, leading to deforestation and without complying with the FRA. They further alleged that the ministry submitted legally untenable data on encroachments in Parliament and the National Green Tribunal. The letter claimed that the ministry makes no reference to the FRA or its statutory body, the Gram Sabhas. According to the law, the rights of forest dwellers recognised and vested under the FRA must be determined, demarcated, recognised and recorded. Only after this process is completed can the extent of encroachment be determined and, subsequently, eviction proceedings be initiated under state laws. The FRA prohibits eviction under Section 4(5) without satisfactory completion of this process. The groups also alleged that the National Tiger Conservation Authority, on June 19 last year, ordered the expedited relocation of 64,801 families from core areas of tiger reserves, in "complete violation" of the FRA, the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 and other applicable legal frameworks. They claimed that this has increased the risk of displacement, forced evictions, curtailment of rights and criminalisation of forest dwellers, pushing many into states of economic and social insecurity across the country. The letter also pointed out that the "India State of Forest Report 2023," published by the Forest Survey of India, blamed titles issued under the FRA for negative changes in forest and tree cover. The groups expressed concern over recent amendments to the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (now renamed Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Adhiniyam, 1980), which were passed despite strong opposition from constitutional bodies like the NCST, scientists, conservationists, forest rights groups and forest-dwelling communities. They warned that these changes would "adversely impact India's forest and ecological security". The groups urged the prime minister to immediately halt what they termed as the environment ministry's attempts to subvert the FRA. They also demanded that Yadav publicly clarify and withdraw his statement linking the FRA to forest degradation and that the ministry immediately inform the Supreme Court and the NGT about the legal status of forest encroachments under the FRA, clearly stating that no action on encroachment can be taken until the FRA implementation process is complete.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
SC refuses to entertain Lalit Modi's plea seeking that BCCI pay penalty imposed on him by ED
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by former Indian Premier League chairperson Lalit Modi seeking directions to the Board of Control for Cricket in India to pay a Rs 10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate for violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act, Live Law reported. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan said that Modi could pursue civil remedies seeking indemnification. The bench was dealing with an appeal filed by the former IPL chairperson against a Bombay High Court order dismissing his plea, Bar and Bench reported. Modi has been under investigation by Indian authorities for alleged foreign exchange violations and a Rs 425-crore television rights deal for the 2009 edition of the IPL with World Sports Group. He fled India after attending only one interrogation session with the Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate officials in Mumbai. In 2018, the Enforcement Directorate imposed a fine of Rs 121.56 crore on several entities, including the BCCI, its then chairperson N Srinivasan and others. Out of this amount, Modi had been ordered to pay Rs 10.65 crore, Bar and Bench reported. The penalty, which was part of the larger Enforcement Directorate investigation into the 2009 edition of the IPL, was imposed after it was alleged that over Rs 243 crore was allegedly transferred outside India in contravention of Foreign Exchange Management Act regulations. On December 19, the High Court had dismissed a petition filed by Modi seeking an order to the BCCI to pay the penalty, calling it 'frivolous' and 'wholly misconceived', PTI reported. It also imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine on Modi. In his petition, Modi had said that he served as the BCCI vice president and the chairperson of the IPL governing council when the alleged violations took place. He argued that on this account, the BCCI was obligated to indemnify him under its bylaws. However, the High Court, citing a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, said that the BCCI was not considered a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence no writ could be issued against it, PTI reported. Modi subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. In the Supreme Court on Monday, the bench reiterated that the BCCI was not a 'state' under Article 12 and hence not directly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, except in certain limited functional public duties like organising sports events, Live Law reported.
