Skip to main content

National Security Act

 National security act 

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in article 19 of the constitution, this article provides for freedom to protest with some restrictions. In recent few years, India has witnessed many protests, such as framer's protest, CAA, and NRC. Anil Baijal, on 17th Jan 2020 vested the power to detain any person under the national security act 1980  for the next three months in the hand of the Delhi Police commissioner.

National Security act 1980, is an Indian parliament act promulgated on 23rd September 1980, this act was was promulgated whose purpose was to provide for preventive detention in certain cases and matters connected therewith. This act contains 18 sections and it is applicable throughout India. This act provides some power to the central and state government to detain the person to prevent him/her from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of India, the relations of India with foreign countries, maintaining public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the country.

This act was not the first kind of law. The defense of India act 1915 was amended at the time of the first world war so that the state had the power to detain a citizen. After the world war, the Rowlett committee decided to retain such laws permanently on the statute books. The Rowlatt bill empowered the state to detain a citizen without giving the detainee any right to move the law courts and even the assistance of lawyers was denied to a detainee. The famous tragedy,  Jallianwala Bagh was a result of protecting against these Rowlett bills.

After the Independence, the government of India act 1935, gave power to the state for detaining the citizen connected with defense, external affairs, or discharge of the function of the crown in its relations with Indian states.

This act states that a person can be detained for 12 months. This order can be made by the district magistrate or commissioner of the police under their respective jurisdictions. The said detention should be reported to the state government. This act can also be invoked if a person assaults a policeman duty.

Case; Ram Manohar Lohia v. the State of Bihar, this case the court expressed that  “ one needs to envision three concentric circles .lawfulness speaks to the biggest hover inside which is the following circle speaking to public request and the smallest circle speaks to security of state .it is then simple to see that a demonstration may influence peace, yet not public request similarly as a demonstration my influence public request yet not the security of the state.

Case; Prem Narayan v. Union of India in this case the Allahabad court said that preventive confinement is considered as an infringement of onces freedom of an individual. Courts have frequently approved infringement of freedom, basically giving no solution for the individual for his anguish. 

Case; Shibban Lal v.state of Uttar Pradesh the supreme court said that "an official courtroom isn’t even equipped to inquire into reality or in any of the realities which are referenced as the ground of detainment ‘.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more