J&K & L Grants 5L Compensation To Lawyer Who Suffered 1080 Days Of Preventive Custody
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted Rupees 5 Lacs in compensation to a practising advocate who had been under four consecutive preventive custody for 1080 days for infringement of his fundamental right to personal liberty.
The Bench clarified that Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (1978 Act) nowhere provided for “Security of State” to a ground for the Government or a District Magistrate to inflict preventive detention upon a person by reference to his alleged reported activities to be prejudicial to the Security of the State.
A Single Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed, “This court cannot resist but to hold that the preventive detention of the petitioner is mala fide and illegal, ab origine and ab intra. The petitioner has been made to suffer loss of his liberty for a cumulative period of more than 1080 days of preventive custody covered under the span of four detention orders in row from 2019 to ending March 2024. Latest preventive detention of the petitioner is compounding the illegality attending the breach and violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty with impunity and that entitles him to compensation.”
Sr. Advocate Z. A. Qureshi represented the petitioner, while GA Zahid Qais Noor appeared for the respondents.
The Court set aside the fourth preventive detention order against a 61-year-old advocate from Pulwama. The advocate had challenged his detention order passed and approved by the District Magistrate and the Government of UT of J&K respectively under Section 8 of the 1978 Act.
The Court observed, “Upon scratching below the surface, there is nothing in the name of reasonableness and rationality to be found in the impugned grounds of detention and in the impugned order of the detention so framed and passed by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate Pulwama against the petitioner.”
The Court expressed concern about the repetitive nature of preventive detentions against the advocate, citing a quote by Laura Miller, "The past is a very determined ghost, haunting every chance it gets." It highlighted that this was the fourth instance of preventive detention, each seeming as “passing of baton amongst relay race runners.”
The Court held, “It seems that the SSP Pulwama and the respondent No.2-District Magistrate Pulwama in continuing with the preventive detention of the petitioner meant to be law unto themselves having extra constitutional authority at their respective disposal in the matter of targeting the petitioner with repeated preventive detention custody unmindful of fact that each time failing to sustain the said preventive detention custody before the court of law.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Advocate Ali Mohammad Lone alias Zahid v. Government of J&K & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Sr. Advocate Z. A. Qureshi; Advocate Rehana
Respondents: GA Zahid Qais Noor