Acts Committed As A Juvenile Cannot Form Basis Of Later Preventive Detention: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
The High Court held that any illegal act committed while a person is a juvenile cannot be used as a ground for issuing a preventive detention order under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, as the statute itself does not permit detention of a juvenile for such conduct.
Chief Justice Arun Palli, Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that conduct attributed to an individual during his minority cannot form the foundation for a preventive detention order after attaining majority.
The Court was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal seeking to set aside the judgment of the Writ Court, which had earlier dismissed the challenge to the detention order. The detention concerned accusations of aiding militants in 2022.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, upon hearing the matter, held, “An illegal act committed by a juvenile does not stigmatize his future and likewise, any illegal act committed by the juvenile cannot form the basis for issuance of a detention order under the Act subsequently, more particularly when the juvenile cannot be detained under the Act (See sec. 8(3)(f) of the Act). As such, this Court is of the view that the appellant could not have been detained for activities allegedly committed while he was a juvenile”.
Advocate Wajid Haseeb represented the petitioner, while Furqan Yaqub, Government Advocate, represented the respondents.
Background
The appellant had previously been arrested and later released on bail, with the charge sheet filed before the Juvenile Justice Board. The sponsoring agency submitted a dossier stating that the appellant resumed contact with militants. Based on the dossier, the District Magistrate issued a detention order under the Public Safety Act.
The appellant contended that the allegations lacked specificity, the grounds were a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, relevant material was not supplied, and the detention was based on stale incidents. The Writ Court rejected the challenge.
Court’s Observation
The Division Bench of the J&K and Ladakh High Court analysed the detention record and noted that the primary basis for the detention was the FIR registered and conduct attributed to the appellant as a juvenile.
The Court held that the Public Safety Act itself does not permit preventive detention of a juvenile under Section 8(3)(f), and therefore actions committed during juvenility cannot subsequently justify detention once the person attains majority.
It was further observed that the allegations in the grounds of detention did not disclose dates, incidents, or the identity of individuals involved, making them vague and inadequate for a meaningful representation.
The Court referred to the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana regarding the validity of a preventive detention order, including the requirements of specificity and rational proximity. It also relied on Judgment of the Supreme Court in Fazalkhan Pathan v. Police Commissioner (1988), where vague allegations were held insufficient for preventive detention.
The Bench clarified that although Section 10-A of the Act permits severance of an invalid ground if other grounds independently sustain the detention, in the present case, the remaining allegations did not satisfy statutory safeguards.
Conclusion
Holding that the detention was based on impermissible reliance upon juvenile-period allegations and vague material lacking proximity and clarity, the High Court allowed the appeal.
The detention order dated was quashed, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Cause Title: Tahir Riyaz Dar v. UT of J&K & Others
Appearances:
Petitioner: Wajid Haseeb, Advocate
Respondents: Furqan Yaqub, GA