The need for proximate and rational connection of past conduct to the necessity of preventive detention, and the illegality of mala fide detention.

JUDGMENT :

1. A quote by Laura Miller “The past is a very determined ghost, haunting every chance it gets” seems to be, though unsaid, but the underlying basis of the mindset of the Sr. Superintendent of Police, (SSP in short), Pulwama and the purported subjective satisfaction of the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Pulwama passed on even to the Govt. in the matter of subjecting the petitioner to suffer fourth time preventive detention in row following each other in the fashion as passing of baton amongst relay race runners.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved of his preventive detention which has been affected in terms of a detention order No. 74/DMP/PSA/22 dated 14/09/2022 passed by the respondent No.2-District Magistrate Pulwama acting under section 8 of the J&K Public safety act 1978, subsequently approved and confirmed by the respondent No.1-Govt. of UT of J&K and as a result where of the petitioner has come to suffer loss of his personal liberty in order to regain which the petitioner is throwing challenge to preventive detention.

3. The process for the preventive detention of the petitioner was set into effect by the SSP Pulwama who forwarded a dossier vide letter No. CS/Pros/DPO/22/177-80 dated 14/09/2022 to the respondent No.2-District Magistrate Pulwama citing the basis that if the petitioner was left to enjoyment of his fundamental right to personal liberty then he would be indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and therefore in order to prevent him from so acting preventive detention was warranted.

4. The dossier so framed and presented by the SSP Pulwama with respect to the petitioner introduced him to be a practicing advocate in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and also in the Sardar Court Srinagar. The petitioner is referred to have joined Jamti-e-Islami upon being influenced by the written literature of Ab. Qadi Awda of Egypt. The petitioner is referred to have contested assembly election in the year 1987 as a candidate of Muslim Muthid Mahaz from Pampore Constituency. The petitioner is alleged to have been a Rukin Jamat and legal advisor of banned Jamati-e-Islami party working as it press and publication chief. The petitioner is alleged to have been a close associate of Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Ameer-e-Jamat Gh. Mohammad Bhat under whose patronage the petitioner is alleged to have become a hard-core element propagating Islam in his own way to achieve ulterior motives including instigating the youth to carry out the activities which are said to be prejudicial to the integrity of the State and by that was able to manage joining of various innocent youth into militancy. The petitioner is said to have been booked under PSA in the year 1990 and 2020 for his prejudicial activities and not only retaining sympathy for militants but also rendering assistance to them. The petitioner is said to have been arrested a number of times but not existing from undesirable activities upon his release and as per the alleged discreet reports pouring in the petitioner is allowed to have been organising/participating in JeI indoor meetings to discuss strategies to be adopted with respect to the affairs of the party. Jamat-e-Islami is said to have been declared an unlawful association by the central government under the unlawful activities prevention act 1967 and despite that the petitioner is allowed to be continuing in the membership of the said organisation. Petitioner is alleged to have been organising anti-national rallies at various places to carry forward the illegal agenda of cessation of J&K from the union of India and it's merger with Pakistan. The petitioner’s activities are said to have been preventing the law enforcement agencies to bring normalcy particularly in Pulwama. The petitioner is even alleged to have been striving for restoration of article 370 of the Constitution of India and for lifting of ban on JeI. This is the long and short of the projection of the petitioner to be a case for i