Tag: Article 22

Uncategorized

Supreme Court Upholds Legality of Arrest in Andhra Pradesh Liquor Scam Case

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the arrest of the son of the appellant in the Andhra Pradesh liquor scandal case, holding that the authorities had adhered to constitutional protections. The appellant had contended that the arrest did not involve proper communication of reasons, contravening Articles 21 and 22. Relying upon Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, the Court reaffirmed that the arresting officers had given adequate information. It rejected the appeal and reaffirmed that arrests need to meet the test of meaningful communication and procedural fairness.

byJigeesha Vaishnav
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Detention Order in Dhanya M vs State of Kerala by Justices Sanjay Karol, Justices Manmohan

The order of preventive detention that had been issued against Rajesh, a financial operator in Kerala, was overturned by the Supreme Court, which further emphasized that preventive detention should not be used in lieu of regular criminal processes. The verdict emphasizes constitutional protections, which ensure that such powers be utilized in a proportionate manner and in accordance with the law.

byLegal Maestros
Current Legal Update

J&K Police’s PSA Crackdown in Srinagar: Constitutional Analysis of Public Safety Act’s Role in Mass Detentions Post-Pahalgam Attack

The Public Safety Act empowers senior executive officers to order preventive detention in the name of “public order” or “security of the State.” Under Section 8, a Divisional Commissioner or District Magistrate may detain any person for up to two years if they believe that individual’s activities could disturb peace or incite violence. Detention orders must outline the grounds for arrest within ten days, although Section 13 permits withholding of sensitive details deemed against public interest. Critics argue that such broad discretion enables arbitrary use of power, eroding trust in the legal system.

Once a detention is ordered, Section 16 mandates that an Advisory Board—comprised of members appointed by the State Government—review the case within four weeks. However, detainees are denied access to legal counsel during these proceedings, and the Board’s recommendations are non-binding. Section 22 further shields officials from legal liability for actions taken “in good faith” under the Act. Together, these provisions create a framework where procedural safeguards exist in theory but often falter in practice, leaving detainees with limited recourse to challenge prolonged preventive detention.

byLegal Maestros