Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Apr 1: The High Court has quashed seven detention orders passed under Public Safety Act and directed the authorities to release the detenues from the preventive custody.
Court has quashed the detention orders of Suhail Ahmad Bhat of Srinagar, Altaf Ahmad Bhat of Kupwara, Farooq Ahmad Khan of Bandipora, Shamim Ahmad Wani of Anantnag, Mohammad Khumani Dar of Pulwama, Tanveer Ahmad Malik of Anantnag and Imtiyaz Ahmad Dar of Kulgam.
The orders of detention against them were passed on 21.1.2023, 4.12.2021, 25.6.2022 and 7.4.2022, 18.10.2021, 13.08.2021 and 29.03.2022 respectively.
The detention order passed against the detenue-Suhail Ahmad Bhat was issued in the month of January, 2023 and has not been executed yet and the petitioner is undergoing a specialized treatment at Delhi after obtaining a valid permission from the court of Special Judge Designated Under NIA Act, Srinagar.
The court in Bhat’s case said that the respondents are in know of the fact that he is not absconding or evading arrest but is available in Delhi in connection with medical treatment and the impugned order of detention cannot operate for an indefinite period of time in disregard of the mandate of the provisions of the PSA especially when the same remains unexecuted for the failure of the respondents without any plausible reason and quashed the same.
The court while dealing with cases of other three detenues said, the detenue cannot be expected to make a meaningful exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India unless and until the material on which the detention is based, is supplied to the detenue.
Court said, the grounds of detention are a replica and a carbon copy of the dossier furnished to the detaining authority for making an order of detention which exhibits that the detaining authority has completely failed to apply its mind and has passed the order in a mechanical and routine manner.
“While formulating grounds of detention, detaining authority has to apply its own mind independently. It cannot simply reiterate, whatever is written in the dossier, therefore, the order of detention gets vitiated in the eyes of law by acting as a rubber stamp”, read the judgment.
The detention record court added, produced by the respondents revealed that the order of detention has been passed while considering the activities of the detenue as prejudicial to maintenance of public order while the grounds of detention reflect activities of the detenue as being prejudicial to the security of the State. This reflects the total non-application of mind by the detaining authority and while arriving at its subjective satisfaction.
“Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law as laid down, these petitions are allowed and the detention orders passed by the District Magistrates are quashed. The respondents are directed to release the detenues from the custody forthwith, provided they are not arrested or detained in any other case”, Court directed.
Court in case of detenue-Imtiyaz Ahmad Dar said the normal law in the instant case had to be assumed to be sufficient to disable the detenue to indulge in any such activity which may have been in the estimation of the detaining authority to be treated prejudicial to the security of the State.
Division Bench while quashing the PSA of Tanvir Ahmad Malik said the grounds of detention clearly demonstrate, that detaining authority has not specified the compelling and cogent reasons or there was no material before the detaining authority to pass order of detention that the detenue-Malik is likely to be released on bail in near future and after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him to prevent him from engaging in such activities.
Court has upheld the PSA of detenue-Muntazir Ahmad Mir who was detained by District Magistrate Pulwama on 03.11.2022. Court said that in the grounds of detention there are specific allegations made against the detenue-Mir and the particulars of the alleged terrorists, with whom he is stated to have close association and with whom he is stated to be in contact, are clearly mentioned.
“So, it cannot be stated that the grounds of detention are vague. In fact, specific instances and specific names have been mentioned in the grounds of detention showing involvement of the petitioner in the subversive activities”, read the judgment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
