High Court quashes seven detention orders under PSA

Srinagar, Oct 14: Overturning seven detention orders under Public Safety Act (PSA) in a week, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh observed that there has been violation of constitutional guarantees envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
The court of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that a detenue cannot be expected to make an effective and purposeful representation which is his constitutional and statutory right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, unless and until the material, on which the order of detention is based, is supplied to the detenue.
“The failure on the part of detaining authority to supply the material renders the detention order illegal and unsustainable in law,” the bench said.
Allowing separate habeas corpus petitions, the court quashed detention orders against Imran Sadiq Thakoo and Shakeel Ahmad Bhat alias Adja residents of Srinagar, Muyeen Gani and Parvaiz Hassan Wani of district Pulwama, Adil Ahmad Dar resident of Narbal Budgam, Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh and Mohammad Dar of district Bandipora.
Justice Dhar directed the authorities to release the detenues from preventive custody forthwith provided they are “not required in connection with any other case.”
Striking down seven detention orders, the court recorded that the grounds in detention orders are vague and lacking in material particulars, as such, the detenue could not have made an effective representation against his detention, on the basis of these vague allegations.
“Thus, there has been violation of safeguards provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the detention order is rendered illegal and unsustainable in law,” the court said.
In Adil Ahmad Dar’s case, the court noted that the grounds of detention are replica of dossier with interplay of some words here and there, which exhibits non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority.
“In the process, the deriving of subjective satisfaction has become causality,” the court held.
While formulating the grounds of detention, the bench recorded, the Detaining Authority has to apply its own mind. It cannot simply reiterate whatever is written in the police dossier.
“The similarity of contents of grounds of detention and police dossier in the instant case clearly exhibits mechanical functioning of the detaining authority, thereby making the impugned order of detention unsustainable in law,” the bench said.
Justice Dhar further pointed out that the grounds of detention do not bear any reference to the fact that the petitioner had been admitted to bail in an FIR in terms of order passed by Special Judge Designated under NIA Act, Srinagar on January, 18, 2021.
The court recorded that the non-mentioning of this important fact in the grounds of detention exhibits non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority.
“This shows that the detaining authority has not meticulously examined the record while passing the impugned order of detention which renders the same unsustainable in law,” the court said while quashing the detention order.
The petitioners had challenged their detention orders on the ground that they were not furnished with whole of the material to enable them to make an effective representation against their detention and the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic, which prevented them from making an effective representation against their detention.