Srinagar, Dec 13: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Tuesday quashed a detention order under Public Safety Act (PSA) against a Budgam resident while observing that there should be no “slackness, indifference and callous attitude” in consideration of the representation of the persons who are detained.
Overturning a detention order against Abid Ahmad Dar of Chadoora Budgam, the court observed that non-consideration of the detenu’s representation constitutes violation of the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution and also exhibits failure of the government to discharge its statutory obligation.
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi held that it is the bounden duty of the detaining Authority or the government, as the case may be, to consider the representation of the detenu and pass appropriate orders thereon.
The court recorded that Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, casts legal obligation on the government to consider the detenu’s representation as early as possible.
“There should be no slackness, indifference and callous attitude in consideration of the representation of the persons who are detained,” it ruled.
Justice Kazmi held that any unexplained delay would be breach of constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention of the detenu as illegal.
“Each day’s delay in dealing with the representation has to be explained and the explanation offered must be reasonably indicating that there was no slackness or indifference,” the bench ruled.
The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition of Dar through counsel M.I Qadri challenging a detention order issued by Deputy Commissioner Budgam on June, 27, this year, on the ground that non-consideration of the representations filed against the detention order amounts to violation of constitutional safeguards provided under the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The court after perusing the material on record noted that it is quite evident that representations have been made by the detenu against his detention which have been received by the respondents, “but have not been considered till date, as the postal receipts placed on record would show.”
“In these circumstances, this Court is left with no option, but to accept the stand of the petitioner that the detenue has made representations against his detention, but the same has not been considered,” the bench said while quashing the detention order against the detenu.
The court directed the Jail Superintendent concerned to release the detenu forthwith, “if his detention is not required in connection with any other criminal case pending against him.”
