MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist

20 September 2024 4:58 PM

By: sayum


On September 17, 2024, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh delivered a significant ruling in the case of Talib Hussain v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (HCP No. 45/2024). The court quashed the preventive detention of a local journalist, Talib Hussain, under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The court observed that the detention was a violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and stressed the importance of safeguarding personal liberty.

Talib Hussain, a journalist working as Bureau Chief of Zee News Urdu, was placed under preventive detention on March 10, 2024. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Poonch had submitted a 48-page dossier to the District Magistrate Poonch, alleging Hussain's activities were against societal order and morals. This led to the District Magistrate ordering Hussain's detention under the Public Safety Act. Hussain, through his father, filed a writ petition challenging this detention, asserting it was a malafide action by the local police.

The primary legal issue centered on whether the preventive detention violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention in Certain Cases) of the Indian Constitution. The court emphasized that the state must ensure that preventive detention is not misused and that personal liberty cannot be curtailed merely based on unsubstantiated allegations.

The court also noted that the dossier submitted by the SSP included references to several FIRs dating back to 2001, many of which had resulted in Hussain's acquittal. Despite this, the District Magistrate failed to verify the final outcomes of these FIRs, leading to a lack of independent application of mind.

Justice Rahul Bharti observed that the preventive detention order was executed without proper consideration of the evidence and was primarily based on outdated FIRs. The court stated, "The respondent No. 4 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP) Poonch in coming up with an adulterated facts against the petitioner with a mindset to somehow get the petitioner behind bars and to suffer loss of his personal liberty at the cost of violation of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty."

The judgment cited the Supreme Court's decision in Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana to highlight that mere apprehension of law and order breach is insufficient to justify preventive detention.

The court quashed the detention order and directed the immediate release of Talib Hussain, reinforcing the principle that preventive detention must not infringe upon personal liberty without compelling evidence. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the importance of judicial oversight in matters of personal liberty and the need for adherence to constitutional safeguards.

Date of Decision: September 17, 2024

Talib Hussain @ Javied v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News