HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J
Irfan Ahmad Teli – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of J&k – Respondent
HCP No. 137/2024
JUDGMENT :
1. Through the medium of this writ petition, Order No.DMS/PSA/03/2024 dated 29.03.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby detenu, namely, Irfan Ahmad Teli S/o Abdul Majeed Teli R/o Mukhdoom Mohalla Naseem Bagh, Srinagar, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, is sought to be quashed and the detenu set at liberty on the grounds made mention of therein.
2. Respondents have filed counter affidavit, insisting therein that the detenu came into contact with antisocial elements who motivated him to indulged in anti-social and antinational activities in order to disturb the public peace and order and subsequently in a short span of time, the detenu got more confidence and became one of prominent nuisance/ trouble monger vagabond, chronic street fighter, miscreant and cheater in his area. The activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted. It is insisted that all the relevant material, which has been relied upon by the detaining authority, was provided to the detenu at the time of execution of warrant.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. I have gone through the detention record produced by counsel for respondents.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner would state that grounds of detention are completely vague indefinite, cryptic and do not specify any specific allegations against the detenu; that grounds of detention that the detenu being a staunch cheater/fraudster and have cheated the general masses in District Srinagar; inasmuch as there is only one FIR No. 73/2023 U/S 353- IPC registered in Police Station, Nigeen and in this regard cases before different courts are presently pending adjudication.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently avers that allegations in aforesaid FIR supra do not fall within the ambit of Section 8 as is defined under J&K Public Safety Act 1978, and, therefore, there is total non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the allegations mentioned in grounds of detention are contrary to law qua Section 8 of the Act. Even if, allegations mentioned in grounds of detention assumingly are true, yet those would not fall as public order as is denied in terms of Section 8 (3) (b) of PSA inasmuch as there is no proximate link between the grounds of detention and the eminent threat to the public order.
6. Further submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that impugned detention order is without application of mind as there is no cogent reason for respondent no.2 to pass the detention order inasmuch as criminal law has already been set into motion against detenu. It is also averred that the detaining authority has not given any justification or cogent reason for passing of impugned order as to how the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, hence the detention order has no proximity with the procedure as envisaged under law. He would also contend that grounds of detention are replica of dossier submitted by police and there is no independent application of mind by respondent.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents insists that detention order has been passed on subjective satisfaction by detaining authority and detention order is in accordance with law and there is no violation or infringement of rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Hence, he pleads that petition be dismissed. It is also stated that the detenu being a staunch cheater/fraudster and has cheated the general masses in District Srinagar and his aim and object is to create disturbance in social order/public order in the Kashmir valley by way of his evil designs and there are serious allegations levelled against the de
Preventive detention requires specific grounds and independent application of mind by the detaining authority; mere reproduction of police dossiers is insufficient.
The main legal point established is the distinction between law and order and public order, emphasizing that preventive detention should be reserved for emergent situations affecting public order.
The necessity to place all material, including orders of granting bail, before the detaining authority to enable them to derive subjective satisfaction for the detention.
Preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act must be justified by current threats to public order, not merely by past criminal activities.
Preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act must be justified by a clear threat to public order, not merely based on past criminal activities.
Preventive detention requires a clear live link between recent activities and the grounds for detention; mere reliance on past actions is insufficient.
Preventive detention orders must demonstrate awareness of the detenue's custody status and cannot conflate grounds of public order and security of the State; failure to do so invalidates the order.
The detenue's right to make an effective representation against preventive detention is guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Failure to supply the material forming the basis o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.