Early Times Report
JAMMU, Oct 7: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of Abdul Qayoom alias Bittu of Kadwah, Udhampur, holding that FIRs dating back nearly 27 years could not, by themselves, establish the "live and proximate link" required to justify preventive detention.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Rajesh Sekhri allowed the intra-court appeal filed by Qayoom and set aside the October 9, 2025 judgment of the Single Judge, which had earlier dismissed his habeas corpus petition. The Division Bench pronounced its judgment on October 6.
The detention order, bearing No. 14-PSA-2024, had been passed by the District Magistrate, Udhampur, on December 24, 2024 under Section 8 of the preventive detention law on the basis of a dossier and other material submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udhampur.
The appellant challenged the detention, contending, among other grounds, that four FIRs relied upon by the authorities related to the years 1997 and 1998, while the detention order was issued almost 27 years later. He also asserted that he had already been acquitted in all four cases.
The High Court observed that although past conduct may constitute relevant material in preventive detention matters, there must be a live and proximate connection between the alleged prejudicial activities and the necessity for detention. A substantial passage of time, the Bench said, assumes significance because the causal connection may stand snapped.
The Court noted that there was a gap of about 26 years between the incidents underlying the old FIRs and the detention order. It further examined recent material relied upon by the authorities, including a Daily Diary Report dated November 3, 2024, reports of the Chowkidar and Numbardar and proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS.
However, the Bench found that the material, viewed in its entirety, did not satisfactorily demonstrate a continuing and proximate connection between the alleged conduct and the necessity of preventive detention in December 2024.
The Court held that mere reference to antecedents separated from the detention order by about 27 years could not by itself furnish the requisite live link, and the Detaining Authority was required to demonstrate why such old incidents continued to have a proximate bearing on the necessity for detention.
The Division Bench also found a separate constitutional infirmity in the handling of Qayoom's representation against his detention. The representation was received by the authorities on January 28, 2025 but was decided only on June 19, 2025-nearly five months later. The Court noted that no satisfactory explanation had been offered for the delay.
Holding that such unexplained delay infringed the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5), the Bench said the requirement of expeditious consideration of a detenue's representation cannot be treated as a mere formality.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the Single Judge's judgment and quashed the detention order against Abdul Qayoom. The authorities were directed to release him forthwith, provided he was not required in connection with any other case.
(JNF) |
