Srinagar, Dec 8: The High Court today quashed 11 detention orders passed under Public Safety Act (PSA) and directed for release of the detenues from the preventive custody and upheld the two PSAs.
The court quashed detention order of Tauseef Ahmad Dar, Amir Ahmad Chana, Umar Manzoor Sheikh, Farooq Ahmad Bhat, Waseem Raja Shah, Faisal Hassan Naikoo, Javid Iqbal Itoo, Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat, Azad Ahmad Shah, Mohd. Ishaq Malik and Mudasir Ahmad Dar who were detained by District Magistrates of Srinagar, Baramulla, Shopian, Anantnag, Kupwara and Kulgam districts respectively.
They were detained on 28.02.2022, 21.10.2021, 20.10.2021, 16.08.2019, 27.10.2021, 09.04.2022, 07.04.2022, 29.06.2022, 08.04.2022 and 27.06.2022 respectively by the concerned DMs with a view to prevent them from indulging in the activities, prejudicial to the security of the UT/country.
They were ordered to be detained and lodged in Central Jail Srinagar and Central Jail Kotbhalwal, Jammu.
Court while quashing these PSAs said the non-consideration of the representation constitutes violation of the constitutional right, guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution which depicts the failure of the Government to discharge its function. Therefore, the petitions deserve to be allowed.
Court further said that most of the detenues have not been furnished the translated version of the grounds of detention nor have he been provided the material on the basis of which grounds of detention have been formulated.
“Further the executing officer has not filed an affidavit to show that he has fully explained the grounds of detention to the detenues in the language he understands. Thus, vital safeguards against arbitrary use of law of preventive detention have been observed in breach by the respondents, rendering the impugned orders of detention unsustainable in law”, read the judgments.
Court in one of the case said that while passing the impugned detention order, it has been provided that the petitioner is to be taken into preventive custody with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State/Country.
Court said that once the detaining authority had concluded on the grounds of detention that the activities of the detenues are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, he could not have been detained for a graver charge of being a threat to security of the State.
The detaining authority while passing an order of detention has to be satisfied and sure about the exact nature of the activities of the detenues and the grounds of detention and the impugned order of detention have been framed clearly reflects a state of uncertainty and tentativeness on the part of the detaining authority while recording its satisfaction. It exhibits lack of application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. This renders the impugned order of detention unsustainable in law”, Court recorded.
Court viewed thus, these petitions are allowed and the impugned orders of detention are quashed with the directions to the jail authorities to release them from the preventive custody forthwith provided they are not required in connection with any other case.
The non-mentioning of these important facts court said, in the grounds of detention exhibits non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority which shows that the detaining authority has not meticulously examined the record while passing the impugned order of detention which renders the same unsustainable in law.
Court has also dismissed two petitions challenging PSAs and upheld the orders of detention passed by the detaining authorities against Adnan Shafi Khan of Baramulla who was detained on 14.01.2022 and Aqib Bashir Teli of Kulgam.
Court while dealing their pleas said the basis for detention of detenues is their activities in which they are stated to have indulged in recent past and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the non-supply of bail order and the bail application to the petitioner-detenues have not caused any prejudice to them so that they would have been hampered from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. It was essentially based upon his activities in the recent past and the contention of their counsel is, therefore, without any merit.
Court said there were compelling circumstances for the detaining authority to pass the impugned orders of detention against the petitioners even though they were already in custody of the police. “For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in these petitions. The same are, accordingly, dismissed”, the Court concluded.