High Court quashes Pulwama resident’s PSA

Srinagar, Oct 07: Observing that the detenu was denied his constitutional right to make a meaningful and a purposeful representation by not providing the entire dossier, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Friday quashed detention of the alleged ‘The Resistance Front’ (TRF) affiliate, who was booked under Public Safety Act (PSA) in 2021.
Setting aside a single-bench judgement, a division bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi overturned a PSA detention against 27 year-old, Murtaza Rashid resident of Samboora village in Pulwama district
The single-judge in May 2022 declined to quash PSA of Murtaza and dismissed his plea.
As per the dossier, the detenu has studied upto Class 7th and is affiliated with The Resistance Front (TRF).
It alleged that the petitioner is in contact with various militants under whose influence and ideology he is carrying out subversive activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
The counsel G. N. Shaheen, representing the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was not supplied with the complete material, such as, the Dossier which has been relied upon by the District Magistrate in passing the detention order and, as such, vitiates the same.
The court noted that it is an admitted position as is revealed from the plain reading of the detention order that the detaining authority has passed the same on the basis of the dossier supplied by the Senior Superintendent of Police.
The bench pointed out that a copy of the said dossier was never supplied to the petitioner thereby denying proper opportunity to file an effective and a purposeful representation.
However, the court noted that the petitioner is not an illiterate person and is an English knowing person and in the absence of any material to prove that he knows only kashmiri, he cannot be said to be a person having knowledge of kashmiri only.
The bench underscored that he was read over and explained the detention order and the grounds of detention in the language known to him.
It recorded that the detenu was duly communicated with both the documents in English, the language known to him.
The court pointed out that the affidavit of the police official serving and explaining the documents to him is not mandatory in each and every case especially where there is endorsement to the above effect and it was not imperative to supply translated copies of the documents to him.
Nonetheless, the bench held, as the entire dossier which forms the basis of the detention order was not provided to him, he was denied his constitutional right to make a meaningful and a purposeful representation vitiating the order of detention.
Allowing the appeal of detenu, the court directed that the personal liberty of the appellant be restored, “if not wanted in any other case.”