Srinagar- The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Thursday chided District Magistrates and the government for taking it “for granted” that they can subject a person to suffer loss of personal liberty in the name of an order passed PSA “as if exercise of preventive detention jurisdiction is answerable and/or accountable to no one.”
A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti made the observation while quashing a detention order under PSA against 24-year-old Suhail Ahmad Lone, a resident of Bomai Sopore in Baramulla district who had been booked under PSA just 13 days after his earlier order under the same legislation passed in 2021 came to an end due to the orders of the court.
“This Court is left to wonder that for the selfsame set of circumstances without any iota of change except intervention of 13 days in between from expiry of first detention order dated 09.11.2021 in terms of order dated 14.11.2022 of this Court in terms whereof the petitioner (Suhail) was order to be let off and the passing of the second detention order dated 28.11.2022 how come the very same set of facts and circumstances at the first instance were held to be prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and second time to be prejudicial to the security of the State,” the Bench said, adding, “It is, thus, rendered clear that the “so called subjective satisfaction of the ….District Magistrate, Baramulla is nothing but matter of word play taking it for granted that District Magistrate as well as the Govt. of UT of Jammu and Kashmir have omnipotent power and authority to subject any person to suffer preventive detention at any given point of time and for that matter any given District Magistrate or Govt. of UT of Jammu and Kashmir by appropriating expression of his and its liking in terms of the grounds of detention envisaged under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, can feel free to subject a person to suffer loss of personal liberty in the name of an order passed under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 as if exercise of preventive detention jurisdiction is answerable and/or accountable to no one.”
The court further said that “Such misconception at the end of the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Baramulla needs a reality check that the constitutional courts are the guardian of the guarantees of fundamental rights to the citizens of the country and in the event of violation of a fundamental right in particular that of right to life and personal liberty, a constitutional court is meant not only to be extra sensitive but proactive in immediately curbing the situation which is generating the violation of said fundamental right to life and personal liberty.”
Subsequently, the court quashed the detention ordered and directed Suhail’s release “not only by the Superintendent of the concerned Jail…..but also by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Baramulla to ensure that the petitioner (Suhail) is released from the said Jail at the earliest.”
Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now
Be Part of Quality Journalism |
Quality journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce and despite all the hardships we still do it. Our reporters and editors are working overtime in Kashmir and beyond to cover what you care about, break big stories, and expose injustices that can change lives. Today more people are reading Kashmir Observer than ever, but only a handful are paying while advertising revenues are falling fast. |
| ACT NOW |
| MONTHLY | Rs 100 |  |
| YEARLY | Rs 1000 | |
| LIFETIME | Rs 10000 | |
