Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the preventive detention of former Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association President Nazir Ahmad Ronga, holding that the allegations against him were vague, ambiguous and lacked material particulars.

A Single judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar, while setting aside the detention order, observed: “it is clear that the allegations made in the grounds of detention, particularly those which have prompted the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention are vague, ambiguous, uncertain and lacking in material particulars. On the basis of such allegations, it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective and suitable representation before the detaining authority or before the Government. This has resulted in violating of his Constitutional right to make an effective representation against the order of detention.”

Ronga was detained in 2024 under Section 8(4) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978, following an order by the District Magistrate, Srinagar. The order cited the need to prevent him from engaging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. It was alleged that Ronga held secret meetings with like-minded members of the High Court Bar Association to achieve anti-national goals. It was further argued that he had visited multiple jails outside J&K to meet secessionists and terrorists in an effort to further terrorism and secessionism. The order also mentioned that Ronga and his associates sought to prevent Kashmir, particularly Srinagar, from returning to normalcy by spreading terrorist and separatist ideology.

Upon reviewing the case, the court found that the allegations lacked specific details and material particulars necessary to justify preventive detention. “The manner in which the grounds of detention have been formulated by the detaining authority clearly reflects non- application of mind on its part. The conclusion and the grounds appear to be of general nature without any specific details about the particular role played by the petitioner,” the court stated.

The court also pointed out that while past conduct can be considered for preventive detention, there must be a “live and proximate link” between past activities and present security concerns.

The court highlighted that the detention order failed to identify the specific persons with whom Ronga allegedly held secret meetings, nor did it provide details of the individuals he met in jails. The court distinguished the case from Mian Abdul Qayoom v. UT of J&K (2020), where intelligence reports substantiated the detenue's activities. In contrast, no such reports or concrete evidence were presented against Ronga. The court stated, “there is no material on record in the shape of intelligence reports or otherwise to connect the past activities of the petitioner with the imperative need of his preventive detention.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s verdict in State of Bombay vs. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya (1951) and Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana and others (2023), the court noted, “something more than mere grounds of detention is required which will enable the detenue to make an effective representation against the detention order. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, having regard to the nature of vague allegations made in the grounds of detention, the only thing the petitioner could have said in his representation was to deny his involvement without making any specific response to the allegations.”

Given the absence of precise details linking Ronga’s alleged activities to any immediate security threat, the court held the detention order was not sustainable in law.

The court further observed: “it is clear that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the grounds of detention are vague, ambiguous and lacking in material particulars, on the basis of which it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective and suitable representation against the impugned order of detention. Thus, his valuable constitutional right available under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India stands infringed.”

Consequently, the High Court quashed the detention order and directed the authorities to release Ronga forthwith.

 

Cause Title: N.A. Ronga v. Union Territory of J&K [HCP No.267/2024]

Appearance: For the Petitioner- Senior Advocate Davendra N. Goburdhan, with M/s Umair Ronga, Advocates Tuba Manzoor, and  Sabiya Shabir; For the Respondents- Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadiri,, with Government Advocate Faheem Nisar Shah, and  Advocate Maha Majeed.