Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Of Man Booked For Anti-National Facebook Posts
The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court was considering a Petition challenging the detention order issued by District Magistrate.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the preventive detention of a man booked over the allegation that he has been uploading anti-national content on Facebook with a view to promote terrorism and radicalize the youth.
The Court was considering a Petition challenging the detention order issued by District Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred by Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held, "......It is a case where apprehension of the detaining authority with regard to the alleged activities of the petitioner was based upon the reports received from different agencies which included the videos uploaded by the petitioner on his Facebook account. It is on the basis of these anti-national videos/photos/posts/chats which were uploaded by the petitioner on his Facebook account that the detaining authority was satisfied that it is necessary to detain the petitioner in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security to the State. There was no occasion for the respondents either to resort to normal criminal law or to seek cancellation of his bail. The contention of the petitioner in these circumstances is not tenable in law."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Altamash Rashid while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate Faheem Nisar Shah.
Facts of the Case
It was stated that the Petitioner was placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State.
It was contended by the Petitioner that the impugned order of detention is illegal, unconstitutional and bad in law and the same has been passed in breach of the mandate of constitutional law and procedural safeguards. It was further contended that the detaining authority, while passing the impugned order, did not follow the procedural safeguards as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act.
It was submitted that impugned detention order was passed without application of mind as the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and stale, on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It was further contended that whole of the material has not been provided to the Petitioner and that the representation submitted by the Petitioner against the impugned detention order was not considered and the result of consideration has not been conveyed to him.
Reasoning By Court
The Court pointed out that it is not a case where the detaining authority has mechanically copied the contents of the Police Dossier while formulating the grounds of detention but it is a case where the detaining authority has applied its mind to the police dossier and the material annexed thereto, whereafter it has framed its opinion that it is imperative to detain the petitioner under the provisions of the J&K Public Safety Act.
It also rejected the contention that the authorities have not resorted to the procedure under normal criminal law but have straightaway taken the Petitioner into preventive custody, which is not permissible in law.
"In this regard, it is to be noted that no FIR has been lodged against the petitioner nor it is a case where the petitioner was on bail. Thus, there was an occasion for the respondents to apply for cancellation of his bail", the Court stated.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Waseem Ahmad Dar v. UT of J&K & Ors.