Prem Chand (Paniwala) versus Union of India & ors. reported in (1981)1 SCC 639 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and held as under:
- The provisions of the statute ostensibly have benign purposes and in the context of exclamation of crime may be restrictions which in normal times might appear unreasonable may have to be clamped down on individuals.
- Fundamental rights are fundamental and personal liberty cannot be put at the mercy of the police.
- Any police apprehension is not enough.
- Some grounds or other is not adequate.
- There must be clear and present danger based home credible material which makes the movements and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence.
- There must be sufficient reason to believe that the person proceeded against is so desperate and dangerous that his mere presence in Delhi or in any part thereof is hazardous to the community and its safety.
- The easy possibility of abuse of this power to the detriment of the fundamental freedoms of the citizen persuades us to insist that a stringent test must be applied.
- Natural justice must be fairly compiled with and vague allegations and secret hearings are gross violation of article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
- The need of the state to issue clears orders to the police department to free the process of investigation and prosecution from the contamination of concoction through the expediency of stockpiling of stock witnesses.
- To police persons who get rich quick by method not easily or licitly understandable is perhaps a social service.
- To keep an eye on the activities without close shadowing and surveillance may perhaps lead to criminal discoveries if they are not too influential for the police.
- Police to be activists and intelligent enough to track down those who holds the nation's health, wealth, peace and security in jeopardy.................