Personal Liberty Can’t Be Sacrificed On Unfounded Suspicion: J&K And Ladakh High Court Quashes PSA Detention Of 19-Year-Old
The High Court held that preventive detention cannot be sustained on vague and unsubstantiated material, and that personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be subjected to arbitrary executive action based on mere suspicion.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has held that personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be placed at the mercy of executive discretion founded on hollow and unfounded suspicion, particularly in the case of a young individual.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed through the mother of a 19-year-old detenu challenging his preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
A Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed: “Personal liberty of a citizen of India guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not meant to be a matter of skating on a thin ice that at any given point of time a person can be tripped to suffer deprivation and loss by a fiat of Executive acting upon unfounded and mirage like suspicion, more particularly when it is a matter of a personal liberty of a young person who is otherwise meant to find life for himself/herself.”
Advocate Syed Sajad Geelani appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate Ilyas Laway represented the Union Territory.
Background
The petitioner, a 19-year-old student, was detained under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, pursuant to an order passed by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, on the basis of a dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag.
It was recorded that the petitioner had earlier been implicated in an FIR relating to offences under the IPC, Arms Act, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, in connection with an alleged terrorist incident. He was treated as a juvenile and was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board.
The petitioner contended that after his release, there was no material indicating any further prejudicial activity and that the preventive detention was based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations. It was further contended that the grounds of detention were a mere reproduction of the police dossier without independent application of mind.
The respondents contended that the detention was justified in view of the petitioner’s alleged involvement in activities prejudicial to the security of the State, and that all procedural safeguards and statutory requirements had been complied with.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the detention record and found that the petitioner’s adverse antecedents were confined to a single FIR registered in 2023, in respect of which he had already been granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board.
It was observed that during the period of custody, there was no material indicating any continued involvement in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
The Court further noted that the basis for preventive detention was sought to be drawn from a short period of approximately three months following the petitioner’s release, during which he was under surveillance. However, the Court found that there was no substantive material in the dossier to justify such detention.
The Court remarked: “When this Court makes a comparative reading of the Dossier as well as the Grounds of the detention, this Courts finds the two are ‘much of a muchness’ and this is where very exercise of jurisdiction under the J&K Pubic Safety Act, 1978 right from its origin from the end of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag and culminating in issuance of detention order from the end of the respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Anantnag got on a wrong foot”.
The Court further observed that the grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, indicating a lack of independent application of mind by the detaining authority, observing that “the petitioner has been detained just for nothing but purely on hollowed dubiety”.
Emphasising the constitutional safeguard of personal liberty, the Court concluded that preventive detention is an exceptional measure and cannot be invoked in the absence of credible material demonstrating necessity.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the preventive detention of the petitioner was illegal and unsustainable in law, as it was based on vague, unsubstantiated, and insufficient material.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the detention order along with the approval and confirmation orders passed by the Government, and directed that the petitioner be released forthwith from custody.
Cause Title: Sehran Bashir Nadaf v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.