HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, J
ZAHOOR UL HASSAN KAMAL – Appellant
Versus
U T OF J AND K TH FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HOME DEPTT AND OTHERS – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the order of detention bearing No. 07th/DM/K/PSA of 2023 dated 15.09.2023, issued by the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Detaining Authority’), whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be detained under the Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’), on the following grounds:
(i) That the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind while passing the order of detention and has mechanically relied upon the dossier submitted by respondent No. 3, who seems to be unaware as to what happened to the FIRs (relied upon by the Detaining Authority), more particularly when the petitioner was enlarged on bail in FIR No. 77/1999, FIR No. 99/2009 and other FIRs mentioned in the dossier, though there is a reference to the order of bail dated 20.07.2023 passed by High Court in FIR No. 182/2018 under sections 120-B, 121, 121-A RPC, 03/13 ULA Act registered with Police Station, Kishtwar.
(ii) That there is no ‘live and proximate’ link between the prejudicial activities of the petitioner and the order of detention. The petitioner could not have been detained for stale incidents in respect of which FIRs were
Preventive detention requires a live and proximate link between the grounds and the order; vague grounds based on stale incidents do not justify detention.
Preventive detention orders must establish a live link between the detenu's activities and the necessity for detention; vague grounds and failure to disclose bail status invalidate such orders.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for detention orders to be based on specific and non-vague grounds, the need to communicate the grounds of detention in a language ....
The Court quashed the detention as it found that there cannot be a greater proof of non-application of mind and that the liberty of a subject being a serious matter, it is not to be tripled with in t....
Preventive detention requires a live and proximate link between past conduct and current need to detain; stale incidents cannot justify detention without immediate threat to public order.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the detaining authority to apply independent mind and comply with constitutional guarantees when issuing a detention order u....
The detention order must be based on compelling reasons, and the detaining authority must supply all material forming the basis of the detention to enable effective representation. Failure to do so r....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 is justified based on the detenue's past conduct and likelihood to enga....
order of detention - Execution of - It transpires that impugned order was issued by detaining authority on 22nd November 2019 and same was confirmed by Government under Section 17(1) of Act 1978 for ....
Unreasonable delay in passing a detention order and the supply of illegible documents vitiates the detention order, and the detenu has the right to make an effective representation.
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.