SYED ASIYA ANDRABI Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FAITH in an Institution is not secured by waving a magic wand. Faith is earned and confidence secured by untiringly & honestly working and by repulsing outward influences. Institutions of higher judiciary are assigned most delicate and highly sensitive and important role to protect and preserve the Constitution of country, it's basic features and all other laws of which the Constitution is fountain head. The Constitution of India, provisions whereof are jealously guarded by the Constitutional Courts is the longest constitution in democratic countries of the world; and the Constitutional Courts of this country have been enforcing the same to secure the goals underlying the said Constitution without any fair and favour or without noticing the person who appears as a party before the Court. The Constitutional courts and for that matter all courts of law do not see who are the parties before them but see the case before them and decide the same in accordance with the law of the land. The Constitution of our country has provided protections to its citizens in it's all forms and shades. The delicate balancing act has been done by framers of the constitution as between individual rights and rights of the society at large. On the one hand, fundamental rights of the citizen of the state have been formulated and on the other hand the protection of State to which the individual belongs to, has been ensured.

(2.) THE preventive detention laws have been enacted to prevent danger to the community as whole. The State which is duty bound to protect the life, liberty and property of an individual is also under high obligation to protect territorial integrity, to prevent danger to security of state and/or to public order. The security of the State in other words would bring within its bosom in bold and larger context, to accord protection to life, liberty and property of the citizens. The preventive detention laws are thus regulatory and not punitive in nature. The laws of preventive detention are aimed at, preventing danger to society and are not exercised to inflict punishment on an individual. The preventive detention laws are preventive in nature and purpose underlying enacting such laws is to prevent the Commission of Offence which would endanger the security of the State and public order. In order to prevent the society from suffering damage at large at the hands of an individual the preventive detention acts as a measure of prevention. It is better to prevent a person from endangering the security of the State and/or public order than to inflict punishment on such a person after the act is accomplished and damage done.

(3.) AN individual, who is deprived of his personal liberty in accordance with procedure established by law has to be deprived of the same by reaching to reasonable belief on the basis of his past activities. For depriving a person from his personal liberty under preventive detention laws, there is no requirement that same shall be done by coming to the conclusion that the activities of the individual has the potential of jeopardizing the security of the State and/or public order beyond reasonable bound. Past is stable and future is always contingent. It is not fear but responsibilities that keeps the society polite. Question would arise in some cases to ascertain how far protections of laws can be afforded to a person who relentlessly keeps violating the same laws. The laws may lose their tenacity.