news details |
|
|
| PSA advisory board no Mere Post Office, HC quashes detention | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 28: In a significant judgment emphasising constitutional safeguards against preventive detention, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the detention of a Rajouri resident under the Public Safety Act, while strongly questioning the functioning of the Advisory Board for overlooking a fundamental procedural violation.
Justice Rahul Bharti, while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Shakoor Ahmed of Rajdhani village in Thanamandi, Rajouri, directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Poonch, to release the detenue forthwith.
The petitioner had been detained under an order issued by the District Magistrate, Rajouri, on July 11, 2026, following a police dossier referring to alleged activities considered prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The detention was challenged primarily on the ground that the detenue had not been informed of his constitutional right to submit a representation against the detention order directly to the detaining authority.
Senior Advocate Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, assisted by Advocate Mazher Ali Khan, appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Dewakar Sharma represented the UT administration.
The Court found that the notice served upon the detenue informed him only of his right to make a representation to the Government, without disclosing his separate right to approach the District Magistrate who had passed the detention order.
Expressing serious concern, Justice Bharti questioned how the Advisory Board had overlooked such an apparent procedural defect while examining the detention case.
The Court observed that the Advisory Board must act as a vigilant watchdog to ensure strict compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards.
In particularly strong observations, the Court held that the Advisory Board cannot function as a mere post office mechanically forwarding favourable opinions for confirmation of detention orders.
The Court further observed that preventive detention involves deprivation of personal liberty without conviction and, therefore, demands meticulous compliance with the prescribed procedure.
It held that a detenue cannot be required to demonstrate specific prejudice arising from the denial of a fundamental procedural safeguard.
Justice Bharti noted that the Board was expected to scrutinise detention cases rather than provide a free passage for their confirmation.
Finding the detention legally unsustainable, the Court quashed detention order No. DMR/PSA/05 of 2026, dated July 11, 2026, along with the connected approval and confirmation orders. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
