Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 Case

High Court Sets Aside Preventive Detention Order, Citing Serious Procedural Violations

04 September 2024 10:15 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has set aside a preventive detention order, emphasizing serious procedural violations and lack of application of mind. The judgment, pronounced on June 16, 2023, highlights the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring diligence on the part of the government and public authorities.

“The preventive detention of the petitioner is inherently illegal… The entire preventive detention exercise with respect to the petitioner collapses under its own weight.” (Para 26)

Quoting Greek philosopher Plato, the court stated, “The worst form of injustice is pretended justice.” The judgment emphasizes that when a citizen’s fundamental right to life and personal liberty is at stake, the government has a heightened responsibility to ensure adherence to the established procedure. It also underscores that the fundamental right to life and personal liberty should not be taken lightly by the authorities.

The case WP(Crl) No. 31/2023 involved Ashfaq Ahmed, who was subjected to preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The detention order was based on a dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ramban, alleging the petitioner’s association with a militant organization and potential harm to the peace and tranquility of the region.

However, the court found serious flaws in the grounds of detention. The District Magistrate, Ramban, had mentioned the name of a different person, Sadam Hussain Ganie, instead of the petitioner in the operative part of the grounds. This error raised concerns about the lack of application of mind and adherence to the established procedure.

The court questioned how the mistake went unnoticed by the SSP and the Superintendent of the District Jail when they read and explained the grounds of detention to the petitioner. It observed that the entire preventive detention exercise appeared to be a farce due to the contradictions and inherent flaws in the detention order.

“In terms of communication… the petitioner was meant to be apprised of the grounds of detention… to be read over to him… then how the operative part of the grounds of detention… came to be read over and explained to the petitioner is just a matter of puzzle for prudence to understand,” the court remarked.

High court held the preventive detention order as inherently illegal and set it aside, directing the immediate release of the petitioner. It expressed concern over the lack of diligence and accountability on the part of the District Magistrate and the government in approving a flawed detention order.

This landmark judgment serves as a reminder that the deprivation of fundamental rights should be done with utmost care and in strict adherence to the established procedure. The court’s decision reinforces the constitutional trust bestowed upon the government and public authorities to safeguard citizens’ rights.

Date of Decision: June 16, 2023

Ashfaq Ahmed    vs  UT of J&K and Ors.     

Latest Legal News