The Case of ⁠Jagmohan Singh vs the State of Uttar Pradesh (1973)

July 11, 2024

In Indian constitutional law, the Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973) case is a seminal ruling. It addressed the national security act of 1980’s preventive detention policy. The case highlighted the significance of safeguarding individual freedoms and human rights while also establishing significant principles for preventative detention in India.

article 22 of Indian constitution

  • The process for preventative detention and specific protections for the detained individual are outlined in Article 22.
  • Preventive detention is allowed by the national security act of 1980 to stop someone from acting in a way that jeopardizes national security.
  • The universal declaration of human rights was one of the few international human rights treaties that the Court in this decision cited.

jagmohan singh v state of up Case Facts

  • Political activist Jagmohan Singh had taken part in a number of agitations against the government.
  • He was taken into custody by the Uttar Pradesh government in October 1971 on the grounds of the national security act 1967.
  • The Muzaffarnagar District Magistrate issued the detention order because Singh’s actions were deemed to be detrimental to the upkeep of public order. The state administration affirmed the directive.
  • Singh filed a writ case at the Allahabad High Court contesting his imprisonment. After his petition was denied by the High Court, he filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

jagmohan singh v state of up Issues

  • Whether Singh’s incarceration was lawful under article 22 of the indian constitution was the main question Singh’s lawyers had to answer to the Supreme Court.
  • preventive detention is allowed under article 22 of the indian constitution, which also lays forth some restrictions against its misuse. These protections include the right to know why someone is being held, the right to legal representation, the ability to challenge the detention, and the right to be released if the reasons for holding someone are found to be unfounded.
  • The particular questions in this case included whether Singh’s arrest was warranted and if Article 22’s procedural protections had been followed.

Contentions by the Parties

Petitioner:

  • Singh claimed that because the reasons for his imprisonment were ambiguous and did not outline the specific actions that were detrimental to the upkeep of public order, his incarceration was unlawful.
  • He further claimed that because he was not given the chance to object to his imprisonment, the procedural protections under Article 22 had not been followed.

Respondent:

  • Singh’s detention, according to the Uttar Pradesh administration, was required to stop him from engaging in actions that would jeopardize the upkeep of public order.
  • According to the authorities, Singh has a history of instigating violence and was involved in a number of agitations.
  • Additionally, the government claimed that Singh was given the chance to object to his arrest and that the procedural protections under Article 22 had been followed.

jagmohan singh v state of up Judgment

  • preventive detention is an extreme step that should only be employed in situations when there is an obvious and present danger to public safety, according to a ruling by the Supreme Court. The Court further decided that preventative detention must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or excessive, and that it had to pass the reasonableness test.
  • After reviewing the grounds for detention, the Court concluded that they lacked specificity and did not identify the specific actions that were detrimental to the upkeep of public order. The Court further declared that since Singh was not granted the chance to object to his detention, the procedural protections under article 22 of the indian constitution had not been followed.
  • The Court additionally ruled that regular law and order measures cannot be replaced by preventative detention. The Court noted that the purpose of preventative detention is to be a transitory measure and that in the event that the detainee’s grounds for detention are not met, they must be freed. The Court further ruled that the enjoyment of fundamental rights cannot be restricted or political dissent suppressed through preventive detention.
  • Preventive detention is an extreme step that should only be employed in situations when there is an obvious and present danger to public safety, the Supreme Court said, citing these and other decisions. The Court further decided that preventative detention must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or excessive, and that it had to pass the reasonableness test. The Indian legislation pertaining to preventative detention was significantly impacted by the ruling in this case.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf

Leave a Comment