Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent ruling, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the detaining authority has to present a clear and compelling explanation regarding the direct connection between the alleged prejudicial activities and the justification for detention and preventive detention based on vague and ambiguous grounds cannot be justified.

The ruling delivered by Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, deemed the detention order liable to be quashed upon scrutinizing the grounds of detention. The court found no clear explanation regarding the direct connection between the alleged prejudicial activities and the objective of the detention.

The case stemmed from the petitioner seeking to quash detention order dated April 29, 2023, passed by District Magistrate Baramulla, referred to as the "detaining authority", whereby the detenu, namely Mushtaq Ahmad Ganaie, was placed under preventive detention under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act. This action aimed to prevent him from engaging in timber smuggling. The order directed his confinement to District Jail, Anantnag.

The petition contended that the detenu was law-abiding and peaceful, with no history of involvement in subversive activities or timber smuggling. It was argued that there was no direct connection between the last activity mentioned in the grounds of detention and the issuance of the impugned detention order. This was because the last activity cited allegedly occurred in 2021, with no subsequent activities attributed to the detenu. Notably, the detention order was issued in 2023 and executed after a delay of four months, despite the detenu being available and undergoing trial in the said case.

This contention was challenged by the detaining authority (respondents), who maintained that the detenu was a chronic and habitual forest offender. They asserted that his activities posed a serious threat to public health, forest ecology, and the national economy. Additionally, they claimed that his actions caused significant damage to the forests and that forest damage had become his habit and profession. Consequently, they argued that allowing him to remain at large would jeopardize the conservative values of society.

The court determined the questions regarding whether the prejudicial activities necessitating a detention order occurred in close proximity to the time when the order was issued, or whether there existed a live-link between the prejudicial activities. It scrutinized whether the detaining authority satisfactorily examined any delay and provided a viable and rational explanation for why such a delay occurred. Additionally, the court assessed whether the casual connection between the prejudicial activities and the issuance of the detention order had been disrupted in the specific circumstances of each case.

The court noted, “Perusal of grounds of detention reveals that same are vague and ambiguous, and do not refer to any date, month or year of the activities, which have been attributed to detenu. Detention in preventive custody on the basis of such vague and ambiguous grounds of detention cannot be justified.”

The court highlighted that if even one of the grounds or reasons that contributed to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is found to be non-existent, misconceived, or irrelevant, the detention order would be deemed invalid. “Where the order of detention is founded on distinct and separate grounds, if any one of the grounds is vague or irrelevant the entire order must fall,” the court said.

The court further held that in the present case, there was certainly no cogent explanation emerging from the examination of the grounds of detention regarding the live-link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the objective of the detention.

Consequently, the detention order was quashed.

 

Cause Title: Mushtaq Ahmad Ganaie v UT of J&K [HCP No. 60 of 2023]