Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988

Supreme Court quashes detention order for illegible documents in preventive detention case: State of Manipur vs. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 22(5), Criminal Law, Detention Order, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, Preventive Detention

Supreme Court quashes detention order for illegible documents in preventive detention case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the supply of illegible documents to a detenu violates their fundamental right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Preventive Detention) Case Name: The State of Manipur & Ors. vs. Buyamayum […]

Supreme Court quashes detention order for illegible documents in preventive detention case: State of Manipur vs. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes detention order under PIT NDPS Act due to delay and suppression of facts: Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura (2022) INSC 771 (30 September 2022)

/ J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 37, Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 with Section 3(1), Preventive Detention, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court quashes detention order under PIT NDPS Act due to delay and suppression of facts: Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura (2022) INSC 771 (30 September 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act) can be quashed

Supreme Court quashes detention order under PIT NDPS Act due to delay and suppression of facts: Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura (2022) INSC 771 (30 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes detention order for not specifying detention period: Lahu Shrirang Gatkal vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ Detention Order, Detention Period, Individual Liberties, Judges, Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 with Section 3, N.V. Ramana, Prafulla C. Pant, Preventive Detention

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, must specify the period of detention. CASE TYPE: Preventive Detention Law Case Name: Lahu Shrirang Gatkal vs. State of Maharashtra Judgment Date: July 17, 2017 Introduction Can a preventive detention order be valid if it does not specify the period

Supreme Court quashes detention order for not specifying detention period: Lahu Shrirang Gatkal vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top