Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAHUL BHARTI
Hamid Mohd, S/o Hussain Mohd. – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Through Financial Commissioner (Additional Chief Secretary) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
01. Heard Mr. A. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Thappa, learned AAG. Perused the writ pleadings along with the annexed documents. Perused the detention record produced by Mr. Rajesh Thappa, learned AAG.
02. The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Jammu by virtue of an order No. PSA-25 of 2023 dated 06.11.2023 ordered preventive detention of the petitioner under section 8(1)(a) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 holding his alleged activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order thereby warranting the preventive detention and lodgment in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. The detention order came to be executed by Sub Inspector – Suraj Parkesh of Police Station Akhnoor on 09.11.2023.
03. Against the preventive detention so slapped upon him by virtue of the aforesaid order thereby depriving him of his personal liberty, the petitioner, acting through his brother, came forward with the present writ petition filed on 29.12.2023 challenging the detention order along with the basis thereof so as to retrieve his lost personal liberty by earning quashment of the detention order and his consequent release from the Central Jail, Ko
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 under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act must be justified by current threats to public order, not merely past criminal behavior.
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.
The distinction between law and order and public order is crucial in cases of preventive detention, and the impact on the community must be considered. The failure to respond to the petitioner's repr....
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.
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.
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
