Introduction
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the preventive detention of Aqib Ahmad Renzu, a former Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) Corporator, challenging his detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA). This case revolved around the legality of preventive detention and its limits when regular criminal law can address alleged offenses.
Case Background
Renzu faced multiple criminal charges, including FIRs from 2013 to 2023, for which he was granted bail. Despite this, the Srinagar District Magistrate issued a detention order on October 4, 2023, arguing that Renzu’s activities were a threat to public order. This preventive detention was challenged by Renzu through a Habeas Corpus petition after the detention order was upheld by a Single Bench of the High Court in June 2024.
Arguments by the Appellant
Counsel for Renzu, Mr. Shuja ul Haq, argued that the authorities failed to provide proper materials supporting the detention order, violating his constitutional rights under Article 22(5). The counsel emphasized that Renzu’s history of participating in mainstream politics and working for Kashmir's welfare did not warrant his detention. The detention, he claimed, was motivated by political rivalry rather than legitimate concerns about public safety.
Arguments by the State
On the other hand, the government, represented by Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, defended the legality of the detention order. The State argued that Renzu's activities posed a serious threat to public order, justifying preventive detention under the PSA.
Court’s Observations on Preventive Detention
The court highlighted that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for regular criminal proceedings. A key observation was that the mere granting of bail in criminal cases does not justify subsequent preventive detention. The court cited relevant precedents, including Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, emphasizing that preventive detention should not be used to override bail orders from criminal courts. The court ruled that preventive detention must only be used in cases of imminent threats to public order, which was not established in this case.
Vagueness and Lack of Specificity
The bench found the grounds for detention to be vague and lacking in concrete evidence. The accusations against Renzu, such as unlawful activities and sexual harassment, were deemed insufficient for justifying preventive detention. The court noted that the detention order did not specify how or where Renzu’s activities allegedly disturbed public order.
Violation of Constitutional Safeguards
One of the most critical aspects of the court’s ruling was the violation of Renzu’s constitutional rights. The failure to provide him with the materials relied upon for his detention undermined his ability to make an effective representation, violating Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution. The court referred to earlier cases, such as Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. State of Delhi and Thahira Haris v. Government of Karnataka, which set precedents for the necessity of supplying detainees with all relevant materials.
Quashing of the Detention Order
The High Court ultimately quashed the detention order, finding no compelling evidence to support claims that Renzu posed a threat to public order. The court ruled that his alleged activities might be law and order issues but did not amount to public order disturbances. The bench ordered Renzu’s immediate release, provided no other legal actions were pending against him.
Conclusion
This case reinforces the limits of preventive detention, emphasizing that such measures should only be applied when regular criminal law is inadequate and when there is concrete evidence of imminent threats to public order. The ruling underscores the importance of safeguarding constitutional rights, especially in detention cases.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.