Login With Google
Curbs under Section 144 should not be too general: SC
Why in news?
- Restrictions may be imposed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on personal liberties in the interest of public order, but they should never be “too general”, says SC.
More in news
- Madhu Limaye vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate:
(1) SC’s warning to the govt. over 50 years ago in Madhu Limaye vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate may play a major role if the imposition of Section 144 CrPC in various parts of the National Capital & other areas across the country is challenged in court.
(2) Limaye judgment by a seven-judge SC Bench in 1970 continues to remain an authority on the nuances of Section 144 CrPC.
(3) Jugement says: restraining orders under Section 144 CrPC are passed against specific persons whose past conduct breeds “sufficient ground” that he is “likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity”.
(4) Section 144 CrPC is not meant to restrain personal liberties en masse.
(5) Case where General order may be necessary: When the number of persons is so large that the distinction between trouble- makers & the general public cannot be made.
(6) General may be questioned: if the action is too general, the order may be questioned by appropriate remedies for which there is ample provision in law,” held the Bench led by the then CJI M. Hidayatullah.
(7) The restraining order should be temporary.
- Section 144 is not a provision for detaining: The Supreme Court held that Section 144 CrPC is not a provision for detaining people as contemplated under Article 22 of the Constitution which means ‘preventive detention’ in custody.
Sources
The Hindu