send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
Article 22 in The Constitution Of India 1949
22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate
(3) Nothing in clauses ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) shall apply (a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or (b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention
(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless (a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention:
(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order
(6) Nothing in clause ( 5 ) shall require the authority making any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose
(7) Parliament may by law prescribe
(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period longer than three months under any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub clause (a) of clause ( 4 );
(b) The maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and
(c) The procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under sub clause (a) of clause ( 4 ) Right against Exploitation
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Even if the sovereign functions of the State are discharged negligently the State is not vicariously liable in tort.
FACTUAL SITUATION: ‘A’ was a trader in gold. He was arrested by Police and was detained in the police lock up after search. The gold with him along with sundry other things were seized. Later he was discharged. His possessions seized by the police were returned, except the gold. He moved against the State in tort. In the words of Supreme Court, “There can be no escape from the conclusion that the Police Officers were negligent in dealing with the property after it was seized.” One of the Constables was a Muslim. He fled with gold to Pakistan.
‘A’ succeeded because the servants of the State were negligent and thus caused injury
‘A’ failed because the Constable who seized the gold had fled to Pakistan and the gold was not with the State at all
‘A’ failed because the acts of search and seizure by the Police Officer were part of the sovereign function of the State
There was some other relief given to ‘A’.
‘A’ failed because the acts of search and seizure by the Police Officer were part of the sovereign function of the State.
By: Parvesh Mehta ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses