Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Oct 7: A Division Bench of High Court today noted that the disclosure of confidential, sensitive information of a detenue in detention order can be threat to the nation.
The situation in the Valley, HC said, does not permit disclosure of any further confidential or sensitive information which if goes in the hands of the separatist group would certainly be a great threat to the nation.
“The vagueness of the grounds of detention have to be considered in the fact of the situation prevailing in the area specially Kashmir which has been greatly affected by militancy in the past. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of a firm opinion that the detention order cannot be said to be faulty on the ground of vagueness”, read the judgment.
The Court observation came in a judgement that allowed the appeal of a detenue challenging the writ court verdict whereby his detention under Public Safety Act was upheld and directed his personal liberty be restored.
Appellant Murtaza Rashid was detained under the orders issued by the District Magistrate on October 30, 2021 in order to prevent him from any subversive activity prejudicial to the security of the State.
He challenged the order of detention of the Single Judge in the light of the pleadings exchanged between the parties and dismissed his plea and upheld the order of detention vide judgment and dated 12th May 2022.
Division Bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Moksha Kazmi on raising the issue of vagueness by the detenu’s counsel recorded that grounds of detention would establish that the allegations made against the detenue-appellant are very specific and there is no vagueness.
The DB has held the judgment of writ court as flawless and opined that the grounds of detention are not vague rather very specific; the detention cannot be quashed on the vagueness of the grounds.
The DB, however, has quashed the order of detention on the ground that the appellant was not supplied with the complete material of detention order, which has been relied upon by the District Magistrate in passing the impugned detention order and, as such, declared the same as vitiated.
“It is an admitted position as is revealed from the plain reading of the detention order that the detaining authority has passed the same on the basis of the dossier supplied by the Senior Superintendent of Police. The copy of the said dossier was never supplied to the detenue-appellant. Thus, it is contended that he was denied proper opportunity to file an effective and a purposeful representation.
Court concluded that as the entire dossier which forms the basis of the detention order was not provided to him, he was denied his Constitutional right to make a meaningful and a purposeful representation vitiating the order of detention.
“Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the writ court dated 12th May 2022 is set-aside. The impugned order No. 60/DMP/PSA/21 dated 30th October 2021 passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed. The personal liberty of the petitioner-appellant is directed to be restored if not wanted in any other case”, Court directed.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
