In a significant judgment, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed the detention of Advocate Muhammad Ashraf Bhat, who had been held under the Public Safety Act (PSA). The court found that the detention order violated constitutional safeguards and statutory provisions, thereby rendering it unsustainable in the eyes of law. Advocate Bhat, a resident of Anantnag, had been detained under the PSA, a law that allows preventive detention without trial for up to two years in cases involving threats to public order or national security. The petitioner challenged the order on several legal grounds, asserting that the detention was arbitrary, lacked procedural fairness, and was founded on vague and unverified allegations.
Upon examining the case, the High Court emphasized the importance of protecting individual liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It noted that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure, and the authorities invoking it must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards to prevent its misuse. The court found that in the case of Advocate Bhat, the detaining authority had failed to provide him with all the relevant documents relied upon to pass the detention order. This omission had deprived the detainee of his fundamental right to make an effective representation against his detention, which is a crucial safeguard under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The judgment also highlighted that the grounds of detention were vague, repetitive, and lacked specific details, making it impossible for the detainee to respond meaningfully. The court observed that the dossier provided by the police was blindly reproduced in the detention order without any independent application of mind by the detaining authority. It reiterated that such mechanical and routine approvals of detention violate the basic tenets of justice and due process. Furthermore, the court pointed out that reliance on stale incidents without establishing a clear and imminent threat to public order cannot justify preventive detention under the PSA.
The High Court underscored that preventive detention laws must be applied with caution and only in cases where ordinary law is insufficient to maintain public order. In this context, the court held that the grounds mentioned in Bhat’s detention order failed to meet the threshold required for sustaining a preventive detention. As a result, it concluded that his continued incarceration was unjustified and ordered his immediate release.
This ruling marks an important reaffirmation of judicial oversight over executive actions involving personal liberty, particularly in regions governed by stringent security laws. It also sends a clear message to authorities that preventive detention must not be used as a tool to stifle dissent or bypass regular legal processes. By quashing the detention of Advocate Muhammad Ashraf Bhat, the High Court has reinforced the principle that liberty cannot be curtailed without strict adherence to constitutional and legal mandates.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.