Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Preventive Detention Act, 1950

7 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

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

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

SHENTO VARGHESEversusJULFIKAR HUSEN & ORS.

2024 INSC 40713 May 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a deliveryman, complained that gold bars received in exchange for gold chains were counterfeit, leading the police to freeze the accused's bank accounts. The police reported the seizure to the jurisdictional magistrate only after a delay, and the Madras High Court ordered de‑freezing on the ground that t

ANANT SINGH @ ANANT KUMAR SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2017 INSC 34212 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a convicted history‑sheeter, was first detained under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 on 5 September 2016. That order was revoked on 17 September 2016, and a second detention order was issued on 21 September 2016 on the same grounds that existed before the revocation. The appellant challenged the s

PRAMOD SINGLAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2023 INSC 34410 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Pramod Singla, was detained under the COFEPOSA Act for alleged involvement in a gold smuggling syndicate and filed representations to the detaining authority, the Central Government, and the Advisory Board. The Court examined whether there was a conflict between the Pankaj Kumar and Abdullah Kunhi judgme

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

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