Back
2023 Supreme(J&K) 299
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Showkat Ali – Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department and ors. – Respondents
WP(Crl) No. 42 of 2023
Decided On : 13-10-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Aftab Malik, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Mohd Irfan Inqlabi, GA
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review as regards the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the necessity of a proximate link between the petitioner's past conduct and the imperative need to detain him.
Headnote:
Preventive Detention - Security of the State - Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 - 3-PSA of 2023 - The court examined the legality of the order of preventive detention passed against the petitioner. The court discussed the scope of judicial review as regards the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and emphasized the limited extent to which the court can examine the detaining authority's application of mind to relevant circumstances and the existence of a proximate link between the petitioner's past conduct and the imperative need to detain him. The court also addressed the petitioner's arguments regarding the veracity of the daily diary reports and the similarity between the police dossier and the grounds of detention. The court found that the detaining authority had applied its mind to relevant circumstances and that there was a proximate link between the petitioner's conduct and the necessity of preventive detention. The court also concluded that the petitioner had been provided with all relevant material and that the grounds of detention were read over and explained to him in a language he understood.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order of preventive custody issued by the District Magistrate, Reasi, on the grounds of false implication and insufficient material before the detaining authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detaining authority had applied its mind to relevant circumstances and that there was a proximate link between the petitioner's conduct and the necessity of preventive detention. The court also concluded that the petitioner had been provided with all relevant material and that the grounds of detention were read over and explained to him in a language he understood.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the order of preventive detention, the sufficiency of the material before the detaining authority, the veracity of the daily diary reports, and the provision of relevant material to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited extent to which the court can examine the detaining authority's application of mind to relevant circumstances and the existence of a proximate link between the petitioner's past conduct and the imperative need to detain him. The court also held that the sufficiency and veracity of the material before the detaining authority cannot be examined in these proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has challenged order No. 3-PSA of 2023 dated 20.02.2023 passed by respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Reasi), whereunder the petitioner has been taken into preventive custody in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities, which are prejudicial to the security of the State.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the grounds that he has been implicated and detained on the basis of false and baseless daily diary reports. It has been submitted that in the grounds of detention, the respondents have named certain militants with whom the petitioner is stated to have been in contact in the year 2002 but at the relevant time the petitioner was only five years old. Therefore, the grounds of detention, on the face of it, appear to be false. It is contended that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he has never acted in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. It is also contended that the material before the detaining authority was not sufficient for drawing satisfaction for passing the impugned order of detention. It is further contended that the grounds of detention are verbatim replica of the police dossier. It is also contended that the material forming basis of grounds of detention has not been supplied to the petitioner, nor the same was read over to him in the language understood by the petitioner. It is also contended that the impugned order of detention has been passed by respondent No. 2 without application of mind.
3. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing reply thereto. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner has been taken into preventive custody on the basis of the material and the facts available against him, which include three daily diary reports at Police Station, Mahore regarding his suspicious activities, which were prejudicial to the security of the State. As per the reports, the petitioner was indulging in anti-national activities and was in constant contact with his cousin brothers, who were involved in militancy and have presently crossed over to Pakistan. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been indulging in radicalizing the youth of District Reasi for joining and strengthening his network against the nation, which is threatening the sovereignty and security of the nation. It has been further submitted that all the constitutional and procedural safeguards have been adhered to by the respondents and the whole material that has formed basis of grounds of detention has been furnished to the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the grounds of detention and other material was read over and explained to the petitioner in the language, he understands and that the contention of the petitioner in this regard is against the record. The respondents have also produced detention record to lend support to their contentions.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and pursued the record of the case including the record of detention.
5. First and foremost ground, that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it has drawn satisfaction for passing the impugned order of detention. It has been contended that the petitioner has never been involved in any FIR and that the daily diary reports have been manufactured to falsely implicate him. According to the learned counsel, the persons with whom the petitioner is stated to be in contact with, have crossed over to Pakistan in the year 2002 when the petitioner was only five years old, as such, it is absurd to say that he was in contact with said persons.
6. So far as the scope of judicial review as regards the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is concerned, it is by now a settled principle of law that Court cannot go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. In the recent judgment of the Supreme
