HC upholds detention orders against two drug peddlers under PSA
Post by Syed Rukaya on Wednesday, December 28, 2022
Srinagar, Dec 27: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Tuesday upheld detention orders under Public Safety Act (PSA) against two drug peddlers, who are allegedly involved in the illicit drug activities in organized manner, while observing that the preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from doing so.
Hearing two separate petitions, Justice M.A Chowdhary declined to quash detention orders under PSA against Sartaj Ahmad Ganai and Barkat Ali Malik passed by Divisional Commissioner Kashmir and ordered their preventive detention under Section 3 of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (NDPS) Act 1988.
The court while dismissing the petitions noted that the duo did not shun the path of their nefarious activities and continue to spoil the life and career of the young generation making them the addicts of these drugs.
It underscored that the detenues were found actively involved in illegal business of drugs and the detaining authority after keeping in view the activities of the detenues, detained them under preventive custody, in terms of the detention orders.
The bench observed that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society.
"The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing," the bench said.
It recorded that justification for such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability and not criminal conviction, which can only be warranted by legal evidence.
Thus, any preventive measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship upon individuals do not
contribute in any way to the nature of punishment, Justice Chowdhary said while citing a Supreme court judgment in a case titled ‘Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration & Ors.
The bench further gave reference to the apex court judgment in the case titled ‘Union of India and another v. Dimple Happy Dhakad’ while recording that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive, but a preventive action, acknowledged object of which being to prevent anti-social and subversive elements from endangering the welfare of the country or security of the nation or from disturbing public tranquility or from indulging in anti-national activities or smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc., preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society.