Back
M. A. CHOWDHARY
Khawer Sultan Mir – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT
M.A. Chowdhary, J. – District Magistrate, Pulwama – respondent no.2 herein (for brevity “detaining authority”), with the purpose of preventing petitioner Khawer Sultan Mir S/O Mohammad Sultan Mir R/O Drangbal Pampore District Pulwama (for short “detenu”) from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, vide Order No.21/DMP/PSA/21 dated 06.05.2021, placed detenu under preventive detention and directed his lodgement in Central Jail, Jammu. It is this order, of which petitioner is aggrieved and impugned it on the grounds mentioned in petition on hand.
2. The case set up in petition on hand is that detenu was arrested on 05.11.2020 by Police Station, Pampore, Pulwama and was lodged at Central Jail Srinagar for almost one year, implicated in case FIR No.86/2020 under Sections 18,20 and 38 UA (P) Act and FIR No. 90/2020 U/Ss 302,307,IPC, 7/27 Arms Act, 16,18,20, and 38 UA(P) Act and later shifted to Central Jail Jammu to be detained under Preventive Custody in terms of impugned order.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents, vehemently resisting the petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have gone through
: Preventive detention – Even one prejudicial act can be treated as sufficient for forming requisite satisfaction for detaining the person – It is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of g....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the preventive nature of the detention under the Public Safety Act, aimed at preventing anti-social and subversive elements from endangering the se....
Preventive detention upheld validating detaining authority's subjective satisfaction from material on continued anti-national activities prejudicial to state security; courts do not substitute views ....
Preventive detention upheld where detaining authority's subjective satisfaction rationally based on material indicating prejudicial activities to state security; courts cannot substitute view or ques....
The purpose of preventive detention is to prevent prejudicial activities, and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not open to objective assessment by a court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the preventive nature of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, and the limited scope of reviewing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority....
One act may not be sufficient to form the requisite satisfaction, there is no such invariable rule and that in a given case one act may suffice.
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
