Back
Gulzar Ahmad Bhat – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. By the medium of this petition, veracity and validity of the order of detention bearing No.DMB/PSA/05 of2020 dated 14.02.2020, issued by District Magistrate, Budgam (for brevity “Detaining Authority”), has been assailed. In terms of the impugned order, Shri Gulzar Ahmad Bhat @ Phalwan son of Sonaullah Bhat resident of Warpora Budgam, has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Kotbhalwal Jail, Jammu.
2. Petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind. It has been further contended that the Constitutional and Statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has also been urged that the allegations made against the detenue in the grounds of detention are vague and that the translated version of the documents/grounds of detention has not been provided to the detenue who is a semi-literate person. Petitioner has gone on to contend that he has not been informed as to before which authority he had to make a representation.
3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and stated that they have
Point of law : A person involved in a criminal case can be detained under the provisions of preventive detention laws provided there are compelling circumstances for doing so otherwise the order of d....
It is a settled position of law that preventive detention orders can be passed even when a person is in police/judicial custody or involved in a criminal case but for doing so, compelling reasons are....
Preventive detention requires compelling reasons when the individual is already in custody; failure to consider representation against detention violates constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5)....
Preventive detention orders must demonstrate independent reasoning and specificity in grounds to comply with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5).
Preventive detention orders must demonstrate application of mind by the detaining authority and provide necessary documents to the detenue to ensure effective representation, as mandated by Article 2....
The right to make representation against detention is a fundamental right, and preventive detention should not be exercised without compelling reasons when the individual is already in custody.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that grounds of preventive detention must be clear and specific, and the detaining authority must apply its own mind when formulating such grounds.
Preventive detention orders must demonstrate the detaining authority's application of mind and provide specific allegations, which were upheld in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
