Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

National Security Act, 1980

69 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SMT. PREM LATA SHARMAversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MATHURA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 16831 March 1998Case Allowed

The petitioner, the wife of Suresh Chander Sharma, challenged his preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980. The detenu had made a representation to the State Government within the prescribed time, which was rejected, and the representation was forwarded to the Central Government, which also rejected i

SMT. BIMLA DEWANversusLIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

1982 INSC 6030 July 1982Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the detention of Shri Dev Raj Dewan under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioner's counsel argued that the grounds of detention included several criminal cases in which the detenu had been acquitted, and that the alleged ac

SARABJEET SINGH MOKHAversusTHE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JABALPUR & ORS.

2021 INSC 70229 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a hospital director, was detained under the National Security Act (NSA) on 12 May 2021 for allegedly procuring fake Remdesivir injections. He filed a representation against the detention on 18 May 2021, which was communicated to the State and Central Governments, but the authorities delayed considering i

FAZAL GHOSI, WAHID, AYAZ AHMAD AND RIAZ AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

1987 INSC 16529 June 1987Case Allowed

Following the opening of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple, communal agitation erupted and the petitioners were alleged to have incited violence, leading to their arrest on several IPC charges. While their bail applications were pending, the District Magistrate issued preventive detention orders under sub‑section (3) of secti

K. CHANDRASEKHAR ETC.versusTHE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 20929 April 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The Kerala Government, after initially consenting to CBI investigation of espionage cases under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, later withdrew that consent to allow State Police to conduct a "further investigation". The Supreme Court held that once the CBI, acting on the State's consent, comple

A. K. ROY, ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1981 INSC 21028 December 1981Disposed off

The petitioners, including A.K. Roy, challenged the National Security Ordinance, 1980 and the subsequent National Security Act, 1980 on grounds that the President's ordinance‑making power under Article 123 is an executive power and not "law" within the meaning of Article 21, that the provisions of the Act are vague, un

DR. RAHAMATULLAHversusSTATE OF BLHAR AND ANR.

1981 INSC 17328 September 1981Case Allowed

The petitioner was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and the State Government confirmed the detention after an Advisory Board reported sufficient grounds. The petitioner submitted a representation against the detention, but the State Government waited for the Board's opinion before consider

MOHINUDDIN @ MOIN MASTERversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEED & ORS.

1987 INSC 18728 July 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and filed two representations – one to the Chief Minister and another to the Advisory Board – seeking release. While the Advisory Board considered the second representation promptly, the Chief Minister’s office delayed consideration of the

VASHISHT NARAIN KARWARIAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

1990 INSC 11328 March 1990Appeal(s) allowed

Vashisht Narain Karwaria was detained under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 after a police report described him as a hardened criminal with a gang and alleged many pending cases, although only one case was on record. The detaining authority relied on these extraneous statements, which were not part of t

HEM LALL BHANDARIversusSTATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS

1987 INSC 2528 January 1987Case Allowed

The petitioner, H.L. Bhandari, was detained under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 on 25 September 1986 and served with the detention order on 29 September 1986. A habeas corpus petition was filed and the Bombay High Court stayed the detention, but the stay could not be served before the petitioner was flow

SMT. PEBAM NINGOL MIKO DEVIversusSTATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

2010 INSC 65027 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The husband of the appellant, an editor of a Manipuri daily, was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on allegations of extorting money for the UNLF and causing a terror wave. The appellant challenged the detention, arguing that the grounds were vague, unsupported by material, and that there w

JAHANGIRKHAN FAZALKHAN PATHANversusPOLICE COMMISSIONER, AHMEDABAD & ANOTHER

1989 INSC 21427 July 1989Case Allowed

J.F. Pathan was detained on 12 October 1988 under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑Social Activities Act, 1985. He had earlier been detained in 1985 under the National Security Act and in 1986 under the same PASA Act, both orders later quashed by the Gujarat High Court. The detaining authority, in forming

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.versusASHA ARUN GAWALI AND ANR.

2004 INSC 31727 April 2004Disposed off

The Bombay High Court quashed the detention of a prisoner under the National Security Act after finding that the jail officials had allowed unauthorised visitors to meet the inmate, facilitating conspiracies to commit murders. The High Court directed criminal prosecution of three jail superintendents under IPC sections

BINOD SINGHversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE DHA_NBAD BIHAR & OTHERS

1986 INSC 20026 September 1986Disposed off

Binod Singh, already in custody for several criminal cases, was issued a preventive detention order under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on 2 January 1986 and the order was served on 11 January while he remained in jail. He challenged the order, contending that preventive detention is justified only wh

AJAY DIXIT, N.S.A. DETENU, THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND AND FATHER SHRI RAM NARAIN DIXIT (LODGED IN DISTRICT JAIL AGRA)versusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

1984 INSC 18026 September 1984Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the detention of Ajay Dixit under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The District Magistrate had listed six past criminal incidents as grounds, alleging that Dixit was likely to act prejudicially to public order. The Court held that t

DAVID PATRICK WARD AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1992 INSC 22026 August 1992Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed a joint writ petition filed by two British nationals, David Patrick Ward and Stephen Hillman, who were detained under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 by the Nagaland State Government for alleged involvement with Naga insurgents. The petitioners challenged the detent

AYYA ALIAS AYUBversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

1988 INSC 35625 November 1988Case Allowed

Ayya alias Ayub, while already in judicial custody for alleged offences, was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on three grounds alleging threats to public order. The petitioner challenged the detention, arguing that the first two grounds (non‑cognizable bus attacks) lacked a rational nexus

SMT. BIMLA RANIversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

1989 INSC 29025 September 1989Dismissed

The petition challenged a detention order issued under Section 3(2) read with 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 against Praveen Kumar Gupta, who was already in jail for an IPC 307 offence. The order was based on a solitary incident in which he shot a person, causing communal tension and an apprehension of a riot,

SURAJ PAL SAHUversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA &ORS.

1986 INSC 19825 September 1986Dismissed

Rampa! Sahu was detained on 17 December 1985 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 for allegedly removing railway material and thereby prejudicing the maintenance of essential supplies. The State served the grounds, allowed a representation, referred the matter to the Advisory Board, and confirmed the o

STATE OF U.P.versusHARI SHANKAR TEWARI

1987 INSC 6025 February 1987Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh sought to uphold a detention order issued under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 against Hari Shankar Tewari. The Allahabad High Court had quashed the order, relying on the Full Bench decision in Ashok Dixit v. State which held that a solitary assault affecting only specific in

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.versusTALIB KHAN AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 121124 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were detained under Section 3(1) of the National Security Act, 1980 by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer on 7 January 1987. Grounds of detention were not supplied within the statutory five‑day period; the magistrate recorded “exceptional circumstances” on 11 January and supplied the grounds on 16 Janua

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusLAISHRAM LINCOLA SINGH @ NICOLAI

2008 INSC 38924 March 2008Case Partly allowed

The respondent was detained under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 for a period of twelve months. He filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging an unexplained delay in the disposal of his representation made on 12 October 2005. The Guwahati High Court accepted the claim of delay and granted relief. On appeal

N. MEERA RANIversusGOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

1989 INSC 25022 August 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The wife of Nallathambi challenged his preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980, arguing that the detention order was made while he was already in jail for a bank dacoity and that the authority failed to consider any likelihood of his release. The Supreme Court examined whether subsisting custody inva

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.versusSANJAI PRATAP GUPTA@ PAPPU AND ORS.

2004 INSC 53320 September 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The Supreme Court examined the detention of Sanjai Pratap Gupta (Pappu) under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detention order cited two grounds: his criminal antecedents and a specific incident involving murder on 13 October 2002. The High Court quashed the order, holding the two grounds inseparabl

HETCHIN HAOKIPversusSTATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

2018 INSC 62820 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was detained under the National Security Act, 1980 on 12 July 2017, and the District Magistrate reported the detention to the State Government only on 17 July 2017, a five‑day delay. The petitioner challenged the detention on the ground that the report was not made "forthwith" as required by Section 3(4)

RAM JETHMALANI, ETCversusUNION OF INDIA, ETC.

1984 INSC 11519 June 1984Matter referred to larger bench

The petitioners, members of the Sikh community, challenged their detention under the National Security Act, 1980, by filing writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. Justice Venkataramiah observed that these matters were not ordinary criminal cases but involved serious questions of national security and the

DEVI LAL MAHTOversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

1982 INSC 7518 October 1982Case Allowed

Devi Lal Mahto was arrested on March 2, 1982 and remained in jail when the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, issued a preventive detention order under the National Security Act on April 20, 1982. The petitioner challenged the order on three grounds: (i) the order was invalid because he was already in custody and could not

MERUGU SATYANARAYANA ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

1982 INSC 7618 October 1982Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined two writ petitions under Article 32 filed by Merugu Satyanarayana and Bandela Ramulu, who were already in judicial custody when the District Magistrate of Adilabad issued preventive detention orders under the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioners argued that a person already detained c

SHARAD KUMAR TYAGIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

1989 INSC 2318 January 1989Dismissed

The petitioner, Sharad Kumar Tyagi, challenged his preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980, arguing that the three incidents cited—extortion of "chauth" from a mango garden contractor, a shopkeeper, and a market threat with a revolver—did not affect public order, that the third incident was fabricate

ABHAY SHRIDHAR AMBULKARversusS.V. BHAVE, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS.

1990 INSC 38917 December 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, Abhay Sridhar Ambulkar, was detained under the National Security Act, 1980 by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, based on a government order dated 6 January 1990 that conferred detention powers on the Commissioner for a three‑month period. The petitioner challenged the detention in the Bombay H

ARSHAD HUSSAINversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2013 INSC 47717 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Arshad Hussain, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Iqbal, based on the prosecution claim that he fired three shots from a 12‑bore gun after being prompted by his brothers, Mujaffar and Shahjad. The High Court acquitted the brothers on alibi grounds, but uphe

HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGHversusSTATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.

2012 INSC 23917 May 2012Appeal(s) allowed

Huidrom Shantikumar Singh was arrested for murder under Section 302 IPC and the Arms Act and, while already in custody, a District Magistrate ordered his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (NSA) on the basis that he might be released on bail in a similar case and could engage in activities prejud

KAMLESHKUMAR ISHWARDAS PATEL ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1995 INSC 26217 April 1995

The Supreme Court examined whether an officer specially empowered under the COFEPOSA Act or the PIT NDPS Act to make a preventive detention order is required to consider the detainee's representation against that order. It held that the officer who makes the order is the detaining authority and must afford the detainee

VISHVJEET AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 25417 March 2026Disposed off

The petitioners, contractual toll‑collection employees, were arrested after an altercation with an advocate who allegedly refused to pay toll charges, leading to an FIR under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. While one lawyer filed a bail application, members of the Barabanki Bar and the Bar Council enga

A. MAIMOONAversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

2005 INSC 62516 December 2005Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the detention of Abdul Kader and another detainee under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The appellants argued that the State Government and the Ministry of Home Affairs had not considered representations made on behalf of the detainees and that there was inadequate material t

STATE OF PUNJABversusJAGDEV SINGH TALWANDI

1983 INSC 19916 December 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the detention of J.S. Talwandi under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The respondent argued that the detaining authority failed to provide sufficient particulars of the first ground of detention, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and that the District Magistrate’s fail

DHANANJOY DASversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE & ANR.

1982 INSC 6316 August 1982Dismissed

The appellant, Dhananjoy Das, was detained under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 and was served with four paragraphs of grounds. He challenged the order on the basis that the first paragraph was vague and that the grounds related to law and order rather than public order, violating his rights under Arti

SUBHASH POPATLAL DAVEversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2013 INSC 46716 July 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered a batch of writ petitions challenging preventive detention orders issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) and the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioners, many of whom had absconded or evaded execution of the orders,

BIRU MAHATOversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DHANBAD.

1982 INSC 7415 October 1982Appeal(s) allowed

Biru Mahato was arrested in January 1982 for offences under the IPC and was already in jail when the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, on 5 February 1982 issued a preventive detention order under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, to prevent him from acting prejudicial to public order. The order was served wh

GULAB MEHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

1987 INSC 24915 September 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Gulab Mehra, an under‑trial prisoner, was served with a detention order under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act while already in jail. He challenged the order on grounds that the detention grounds were vague, the detaining authority had not applied its mind, and that a preventive detention cannot be validly mad

ANANT SAKHARAM RAUT & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ETC.

1986 INSC 23514 November 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Anant Sakharm Raut was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 based on three criminal incidents for which cases were pending. At the time the detention order was issued, Raut had applied for bail in all three cases and had been released on bail on successive days, but the order made no mention o

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NOWGONG & ANR.versusSARAT MUDOI

1983 INSC 12114 September 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Assam detained Sarat Mudoi under the National Security Act, 1980, Section 3(2) read with 3(3), issuing an order that did not specify which of the 16 notified supplies or services were affected by his alleged conduct. The High Court quashed the detention, holding that the order must name the particular supp

STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.versusSANASAM ONGBI AND ANR.

1999 INSC 47513 October 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Manipur detained Sanasam Ongbi under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980. The Gauhati High Court quashed the detention order, holding that the State had violated Section 3(5) because the report of the detention did not reach the Central Government within seven days. On appeal, the Supreme Court

PIARA SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1987 INSC 28013 October 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Piara Singh was detained under the National Security Act, 1980 and later served with a detention order under COFEPOSA. After his COFEPOSA detention was revoked, he failed to make a representation against the NSA order, believing he was only detained under COFEPOSA. He subsequently filed a representation to the Punjab G

ALIJAN MIAN AND ANOTHERversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DHANBAD

1983 INSC 11913 September 1983Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined two writ petitions challenging orders of preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 issued against Alijan Mian and Jadunandan Sah, who were already in jail and likely to be released on bail. The detaining authority justified the detention on the ground that, if released, the p

GAUTAM NAVLAKHAversusNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

2021 INSC 29512 May 2021Dismissed

The appellant, Gautam Navlakha, was arrested in connection with a UAPA case and placed under house arrest for 34 days after a transit remand order was stayed by the Delhi High Court. He later surrendered and was taken into police custody, seeking default bail on the ground that the house‑arrest period should count towa

UNION OF INDIAversusYUMNAM ANAND M. @BOCHA @ KORA @ SURAJ AND ANR.

2007 INSC 41412 April 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appealed against a Gauhati High Court order that quashed a preventive detention order issued under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detenu had filed a representation against his detention, and the Ministry of Home Affairs sought comments from the sponsoring authority before reject

SMT. SHASHI AGARWALversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

1988 INSC 612 January 1988Case Allowed

Arun Aggarwal, already in jail for five non‑bailable offences, was detained under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 on August 3, 1987. The detention order, approved under Section 12(1) after an Advisory Board opinion, was based solely on the fact that he was seeking bail and there was a possibility he might

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC (LAW AND ORDER-F) AND ANOTHER.versusNABILA AND ANOTHER.

2014 INSC 8529 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the Secretary to the Government (Law & Order‑F), appealed against a Madras High Court order that quashed a preventive detention order issued under Section 3(1)(a) of the National Security Act, 1980 against a man arrested in September 2012 for alleged breach of the Official Secrets Act. The High Court had

SURYA PRAKASH SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1994 INSC 3069 August 1994

Surya Prakash Sharma was detained under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 while already in judicial custody for a murder case. The grounds of detention alleged that he might commit further serious offences if released on bail. The Supreme Court examined whether a preventive detention order can be validly

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusMANISH BAHAL @ NISHU

2001 INSC 2859 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Manish Bahal, was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, and the detention was approved by the Lt. Governor of Delhi. Bahal filed a representation to the Advisory Board, which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention. The Lt. Governor, after considering the Boa

YOGENDRA MURARIversusSTATE OF U.P.

1988 INSC 2078 August 1988Dismissed

Yogendra Murari was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 after three violent incidents that disturbed public order. He challenged the detention on grounds that the order improperly included incidents unrelated to public order, was delayed beyond four months, was intended to defeat a bail order

ABDUL KARIMversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 5057 November 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined applications filed by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code to withdraw TADA charges against accused linked to the forest brigand Veerappan, whose kidnapping of actor Rajkumar prompted the Karnataka government to concede to his demands. The SPP’s

KAMLAKAR PRASAD CHATURVEDIversusSTATE OF M. P. & ANR

1983 INSC 1467 October 1983Case Allowed

The petitioner, Kamlakar Prasad Chaturvedi, was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on seven grounds, two of which related to incidents that occurred in 1978 and 1980, more than five and two years respectively before the detention order dated 6 May 1983. The petitioner challenged the order on

RAISUDDIN @ BABU TAMCHIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

1983 INSC 1507 October 1983Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the preventive detention of Raisuddin under the National Security Act, 1980, alleging that the State Government failed to forward the detainee's representation to the Advisory Board within the statutory period, thereby violating Section 10 of the Act. The Court examined whether a delay in for

MRS. T. DEVAKIversusGOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

1990 INSC 797 March 1990Case Allowed

Mrs. T. Devaki, wife of R. Thamaraikani, challenged a detention order dated 15‑08‑1989 issued under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The order, passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, alleged that Thamaraikani’s assault on a minister at a public seminar threatened public order. The

SMT. ANGOORI DEVI FOR RAM RATANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 3626 December 1988Case Allowed

Two Delhi Police personnel, Ram Ratan (Head Constable) and Hawa Singh (Constable), were arrested for assaulting a rickshaw puller and seizing TV parts, offences under IPC sections 392 and 34. While the criminal case was pending, the Commissioner of Police detained them under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1

STATE OF U.P.versusKAMAL KISHORE SAINI

1987 INSC 3166 November 1987Dismissed

Kamal Kishore Saini was detained under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on three criminal grounds. He challenged the detention before the Allahabad High Court, which quashed the order on the ground that he was not supplied with vital documents (statements under Sec. 161 CrPC, applications of co‑accused,

STATE OF PUNJABversusSUKHPAL SINGH

1989 INSC 3076 October 1989Dismissed

Sukhjinder Singh was detained under the National Security Act, 1980 on 28 May 1988. His son, Sukhpal Singh, filed writ petitions seeking habeas corpus, alleging that the detention order was issued without subjective satisfaction, that there was an inordinate delay in considering the detenu's representation, and that th

SHAFIQ AHMADversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MEERUT & ORS.

1989 INSC 2706 September 1989Case Allowed

The petitioner challenged his preventive detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, arguing that the order dated 15 April 1988 was executed after an unreasonable delay (arrest on 2 October 1988) and that the grounds cited were not genuinely related to public order and were vague. The Supreme Court

RAMA DHONDU BORADEversusV.K. SARAF, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

1989 INSC 1845 May 1989Case Allowed

The petitioner, Rama Dhondu Borade, was detained under the National Security Act, 1980 on the ground that his activities threatened public order in Greater Bombay. He filed a writ petition challenging the legality of his detention, alleging that the Union of India unreasonably delayed consideration of his representatio

ASHOK KUMARversusDELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS.

1982 INSC 515 May 1982Dismissed

Ashok Kumar challenged his preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980, arguing that the two‑day delay in furnishing the grounds of detention violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution and that the detaining authority failed to specify the period of detention and to link the grounds to "public order". Th

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusZAVAD ZAMA KHAN

1984 INSC 1064 May 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent was detained under the National Security Act, 1980, and made a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which was forwarded to the Advisory Board. He also filed a separate representation for revocation of his detention under section 14 of the Act to the Prime Minister. The Central Governme

YUMMAN ONGBI LEMBI LEIMAversusSTATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.

2012 INSC 24 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's husband, Yumman Somendro, was arrested in January 2011 for murder and, while in police custody, was served with a detention order under the National Security Act (NSA) dated 31 January 2011, which was later confirmed by the Governor for twelve months. The order was based solely on the subjective satisfa

SUBHASH BHANDARI & ANR. ETC.versusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LUCKNOW & ORS.

1987 INSC 3103 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, contractors for supplying ballast to the Public Works Department, were detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on grounds that they had attacked a rival contractor with firearms and grenades, allegedly to intimidate him and influence tendering. They challenged the detention, argui

JITENDER TYAGIversusDELHI ADMINISTRATION & ANR.

1989 INSC 3003 October 1989Dismissed

Jitender Tyagi was detained under the National Security Act, 1980 by an order dated 19 January 1989 issued by the Delhi Police Commissioner, who was delegated the power by the Delhi Administration. The order was approved by the Administrator on 31 January 1989. Tyagi challenged the detention on three grounds: the compu

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.versusSHAMSHER SINGH

1985 INSC 1181 May 1985Appeal(s) allowed

Shamshar Singh, a practising advocate, was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. He challenged the detention on four grounds: (1) a one‑day delay in placing his representation before the Advisory Board violated Section 10; (2) the Board failed to consider documentary evidence he produced, cont

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search