Objectionable & Contemptuous: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Pulls Up Srinagar SSP For Objectionable Remarks Against Judiciary

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has pulled up a Senior Superintendent of Police for his attempt to demean the judiciary by implying that a man accused of drug trafficking had used his influence to secure bail and challenge detention orders before courts.

The Court was considering a Petition challenging the order passed by Divisional Commissioner in terms of the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.

The bench of Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi observed, "The averments taken in the dossier prepared by the then SSP, Srinagar Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, inasmuch as the same pertains to the judicial process and judiciary are not only objectionable but highly lamentable too. The said officer was neither entrusted with the authority nor was obliged under law to demean this Institution and to act beyond his limits. The disrespectful language made use of by the officer in the dossier, as rightly pointed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, is contemptuous to say the least. This type of practice cannot be allowed to be nurtured lest that may destabilize the entire democratic setup. In that background, this Court feels constrained to seriously take note of paragraph No. 4 of the dossier, prepared by the SSP, Srinagar. The Director General of Police is directed to seek explanation from the then SSP, Srinagar, Mr Imtiyaz Hussain, with respect to the averments, as taken note of hereinbefore, made in the dossier and initiate action against him for trying to demean the stature and integrity of judiciary and its judicial process."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate B. A. Bashir while the Respondent was represented by Assistant Counsel Nadiya Abdullah.

Facts of the Case

A detention order dated 8th of August, 2020 was issued by the State against the Petitioner which was stayed by the Court. It was argued that the said detention order was issued on similar grounds as that of the impugned order. The Respondents without withdrawing or cancelling the said earlier detention order issued a fresh one, challenged herein, the detenue was taken into custody and lodged in Bhaderwah Sub Jail in pursuance thereof. The challenge to the impugned order is primarily made on the grounds that the grounds of detention are frivolous, imaginary, highly vague, and without any substance, there are no specific particulars which would identify the date, place and time in the grounds mentioned to enable the detenue to make representation against it; the status of the FIRs mentioned in the detention order have not been stated in the grounds of detention, as such, there is no subjective satisfaction for proposing the detention of the detenue under mpugned detention order.

It was argued that there is no evidence or any kind of material to support allegations raised in the grounds of detention and the assertion put forth by the detaining authority that the Petitioner has been given multiple chances to reform but has continued his illegal drug trade, contradicts the very records of the FIRs; the material evidence in the present case does not substantiate the claim that the Petitioner is a hardcore drug peddler of a kingpin of the drug mafia; the grounds indicate that there are reports, which was not provided to the detenue and on what basis said alleged reports have been received by the etaining authority

On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that there is no vagueness or staleness in the grounds coupled with definite indications, as to the impact thereof, which were precisely stated in the grounds of detention and the incidents clearly substantiate the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset stated that the detaining authority has specifically stated in the grounds of detention that the conditions mentioned in the bail order, includes that the detenue will not indulge in such activities, however, despite that condition, the detenue had discreetly involved in such activities and the same cannot be agitated before the Court for cancellation of the bail of the detenue, leaving no other option for Police to sponsor and recommend the detention order under PIT NDPS

Reference was made to the Supreme Court's decision in “Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telenganna” (1987) in which it was held the detention order must be based on a reasonable prognosis of the further behaviour of a person based his past conduct in light of the surrounding circumstances and requisite satisfaction.

The detention order was thus quashed.

The Petition was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: Riyaz Ahmad Channa through his wife vs. UT of J&K and Ors.

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate B. A. Bashir, Advocate Rasi

Respondent- Assistant Counsel Nadiya Abdullah, Senior Advocate Mohsin Qadri

Click here to read/ download Order