সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Preventive Detention
Detaining authority must keep in view Article 33(5) of the Constitution-Grounds to be commu- nicated at the earliest to the detenu regarding the order of detention. The detaining authority must always keep in view Article 33(5) of the Constitution which provides that the authority making the order for preventive detention shall, as soon as may be, communicate to the detained person the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and the Legislature in section 8(2) of Special Powers Act has taken pains to specifically direct the detaining authority to cause service of the order containing the detailed grounds of detention at the time of detention, that is, at the very moment he is detained under the order of pre- ventive detention. Dr Md Habibullah vs Secretary Ministry, of Home Affairs 41 DLR 160.
Grounds in the initial order of detension cannot be substituted for separate grounds to be communicated to the detenu. Chunnu Chowdhury vs District Magistrate 41 DLR 156.
The authority can never justify an order of preventive detention by merely saying that the action was taken in the interest of public safety and public order. It has to satisfy the High Court Division which is an obligation cast upon the Court by the Constitution, that there were materials on record as would satisfy a reasonable person to justify the order of detention.
It must be made clear that the law which we have declared has never granted absolute power either to the Government or to the President to make an order of detention even in the circum- stances mentioned in the judgment nor it is the law that the satisfaction upon which an order of detention is made is immune from challenge. The power of the Supreme Court in making scrutiny of executive acts never recedes to the background, as observed by the learned Judge, so long as the Constitution remains operative. The maintenance of law and order, public peace, public safety and security are undisputedly concerns of the State and the Government know best how to preserve them, but the Court's concern in a case of preventive detention is to see whether the person is being detained without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner. Mostafizur Rahman vs Bangla- desh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs 51 DLR 1.
A preventive detention is the deprivation of the liberty of a citizen, which right should not be taken away in an arbitrary manner. So this Court enjoys power to review the actions of the detaining authority under Articles 102(2)(b)(i) of the Constitution and under section 491 of the Code. Anwar Hossain vs State 55 DLR 643.
Where specific criminal charge has been levelled and specific criminal case is pending, the executive authority should not take recourse to preventive detention-Executive authority is to act in aid of the Supreme Court as a solemn constitutional obligation. AKM Azizul Hoque vs Bangladesh 42 DLR 189.
This decision deals with the implication of sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Special Powers Act read with Article 33(4) of the Constitution regarding the placing of the case of the detenu within the statutory period of 120 days (as per section 10) before the Advisory Board, sending of the report of the Advisory Board containing its opinion to the Government within 170 days as per section II and the legal necessity of the Government to confirm or revoke the order of detention (and in case of confirmation pass further order for continuation of detention serving the same on the detenu) which in effect means that continuation of an order of detention for indefinite period, even if initially otherwise valid, becomes illegal either on 120th day due to contravention of section 10, or, on 170th day due to the contra- vention of the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Special Powers Act or on 180th day if the provision of section 12 of the said Act read with Art 33(4) of the Constitution is not complied with. Md Mansur vs Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs 42 DLR 272.
Government cannot detain a person beyond 6 months as the Advisory Board did not submit its opinion within that period. Detention is illegal being also in contravention of Article 33(4) of the Constitution.
It is clear from the provision of Article 33(4) of the Constitution that if the Advisory Board does not report within six months that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention of the detenu concerned the Government cannot detain the detenu beyond six months. Undoubtedly the detenu was never placed before the Advisory Board within six months from his first detention on 8-1-88. Therefore, the order of detention Annexure-F dated 23-5-88 is illegal. We are of the view that the detention of the detenu is illegal, without any lawful authority and does not come within the scope of the Special Powers Act and is in contravention of Article 33(4) of the Constitu- tion of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. Mono-wara Begum vs Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs 41 DLR 35.
For a detention order made by the District Magistrate on being satisfied about the prejudicial act by any person and the extension of such order by the Government under section 3 of the Special Powers Act, there is no requirement of law to place it before the President for his approval, and consequently there is no obligation nor scope to pass order by noting it as "by order of the President" and this being a purely executive order the provision of Article 56(3) of the Constitution is not applicable to this case. Sekandar Ali vs Bangladesh 42 DLR 346.
When Court examines a confidential file relating to a detenu it should indicate, without disclosing the materials, that there are facts in the confidential file that are relatable to the ground of detention. Habiba Mahmud vs Bangladesh 45 DLR (AD) 89.
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
