Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

Md. Abdul Khalique and Ors. v. The State of Manipur and Ors. - (High Court of Manipur) (06 Jun 2016)

Slight deviation from guidelines forgivable at judicial review

MANU/MN/0052/2016

Constitution

Manipur High Court dismissed challenge by a constable of the police force against his dismissal order, which he claimed was passed without an enquiry being held and on the basis of uncorroborated evidence.

The court rejected Petitioner’s claims that his dismissal from the force was solely on the basis of a statement of a self-proclaimed leader of a banned army organisation; instead it noted the police to have recorded other instances of Petitioner’s “subversive activities”. The State’s intelligence agencies had also unearthed other incriminating evidence against him.

The Petitioner, a constable with the police force, was arrested for partaking in acts adversely affecting security in the State and was involved in anti-national activities. One of the several charges proved against him included hurling a hand grenade near a hospital.

The court concluded that judicial review of the dismissal order was restricted to the relevant authorities not having followed prescribed guidelines. However, departure from norm would likely not be interfered in by courts unless the same prejudice the interests of the public.

Relevant : Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. MANU/SC/0021/1967 Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0048/1979 A.K. Kaul and another vs. Union of India and another MANU/SC/0267/1995

Tags : JUDICIAL REVIEW   ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER   NATIONAL SECURITY   DEVIATION   GUIDELINES  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved