Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has issued a strong rebuke to the government and District Magistrates (DMs) for their misuse of the Public Safety Act (PSA), underscoring that personal liberty should not be arbitrarily compromised under the guise of preventive detention.

Justice Rahul Bharti, delivering the judgment, highlighted the court's proactive role in addressing violations of the right of personal liberty of citizens, stating that “a constitutional court is meant not only to be extra sensitive but pro-active in immediately curbing the situation which is generating the violation of said fundamental right to life and personal liberty.”

The court’s criticism came in response to a petition by 24-year-old Suhail Ahmad Lone from Bomai Sopore in Baramulla district. Lone challenged his detention under the PSA, which was imposed merely 13 days after a previous detention order against him was quashed by the court in 2021. Lone's legal argument centered on whether the unchanged circumstances cited by the District Magistrate could justify successive detention orders on different grounds—first for maintenance of public order and then for state security.

The court criticised the subjective satisfaction claimed by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, describing it as mere wordplay that assumed unchecked power to detain individuals. "It appears as if the preventive detention jurisdiction is answerable to no one,” the court remarked.

The court expressed astonishment over the arbitrary nature of the detention orders."This court is left to wonder how the very same set of facts and circumstances were deemed prejudicial to public order initially and then to the security of the state shortly thereafter,” the judgment stated.

The court stated that it is evident the so-called subjective satisfaction of Respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate of Baramulla, is nothing more than wordplay. This attitude assumes that both the District Magistrate and the Government of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir possess omnipotent power and authority to impose preventive detention on anyone at any time. They appear to believe they can arbitrarily decide on the grounds for detention under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, thereby depriving individuals of their personal liberty without accountability.

“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,” the court further remarked.

Lone's detention on November 28, 2022, followed an earlier order dated November 9, 2021, which had been based on alleged involvement in multiple FIRs and had led to his year-long detention at Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. This initial detention was quashed by the court on November 14, 2022, yet Lone was rearrested under a new PSA order just 13 days later.

The court found that the dossier used to justify Lone’s second detention was a repetition of the earlier one, which had already been deemed insufficient.

Consequently, the court quashed the detention order and directed the immediate release of Lone from the District Jail Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, where he was held.

 

Cause Title: Suhail Ahmad Lone v Union Territory of J&K [WP(Crl) No. 829/2022]