Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside the preventive detention order against Advocate Miyan Muzaffar under the J&K Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978. The court held that the detention order, alleging Muzaffar of propagating secessionist ideologies, was based on vague and flimsy grounds, lacking sufficient material to justify the detention.

A Single judge bench comprising Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, observed: “The detaining authority has not applied its mind to the relevant circumstances, the detention order is based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute. The grounds on which the impugned order has been based are not only vague, but illusive also. There is neither any clarity nor any live and proximate link between any past conduct of the detenue, and the imperative need to detain him. The Advisory Board has also not specified effectively the sufficient cause for the detention of the detenue.”

Muzaffar was arrested on the night of July 13-14, 2024, and placed under preventive detention. His family was allegedly not informed of the reasons for his arrest at the time. It was later revealed that authorities accused Muzaffar of being influenced by the alleged secessionist leanings of his uncle, Mian Abdul Qayoom, a senior lawyer and former president of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Srinagar. Qayoom, currently in custody for his alleged involvement in the 2020 murder of Advocate Babar Qadri, was also cited as a reason for the preventive action against Muzaffar. The authorities further claimed that Muzaffar participated in anti-national activities, including organizing seminars with separatist leaders like Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Yasin Malik to propagate secessionist ideologies. Muzaffar’s wife challenged the detention order in the High Court.

The court further criticized the failure to provide Muzaffar or his family with sufficient information to contest the detention effectively. It stated, “If the detenue is not informed about his right as enshrined in the Constitution, the opportunity granted by the Constitution itself becomes an exercise in futility if not a nullity. The grounds of detention must be self – sufficient and self – explanatory. The detaining authority is under an obligation to furnish all the pertinent and proximate facts and material relied upon in passing the detention order to the detenue. In the instant case the relevant material was not supplied to the family of the detenue or to the detenue even on their request, which was essential for making an effective representation.”

Furthermore, the court emphasised the absence of any live or proximate link between Muzaffar’s alleged past conduct and the need for his preventive detention. Furthermore, it highlighted the vague nature of the claims and the lack of clarity in the grounds cited, including the allegation that Muzaffar's profession as a lawyer and relationship with Qayoom were sufficient to justify detention.

Conclusively, the court set aside and quashed the detention order and ordered that Muzaffar be released forthwith.

 

Cause Title: Miyan Muzaffar V/s UT of Jammu and Kashmir