In a significant judgment, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh upheld the preventive detention of Sher Mohd under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The detention was challenged by his wife, Famida Begum, on grounds of procedural lapses and violation of constitutional rights. However, the court found no merit in the contentions raised and dismissed the petition.
Background of the Case
Sher Mohd, a resident of Kishtwar, was arrested in connection with an FIR under Sections 196 and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly slaughtering a calf. After being granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kishtwar, he was accused of continuing provocative activities that led to widespread communal unrest across the district. The authorities stated that his actions, particularly involving bovine slaughter, inflamed religious sentiments and led to large-scale protests and breakdown of communal harmony in various parts of Kishtwar. Consequently, the District Magistrate issued a detention order to prevent him from engaging in further acts prejudicial to public order.
Legal Challenge and Court's Observations
The petitioner contended that the detenu had not been supplied with copies of 16 daily diary reports, which formed the basis of the detention order, thereby violating his right to make an effective representation. However, Justice Sanjay Dhar noted that while the daily diary reports were indeed relied upon, the details of these reports were summarised extensively in the dossier that was admittedly received by the detenu. The court examined the execution report and found that the detenu had been handed a dossier consisting of 35 pages, which included the detention order, grounds of detention, and the dossier itself. The court concluded that there was no breach of the detenu's rights in this regard.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment underscores the court's recognition of the potential of certain actions, such as bovine slaughter, to disrupt communal harmony and public order. It also highlights the importance of procedural compliance in preventive detention cases. The court's decision to uphold the detention order, despite the absence of specific documents, was based on the comprehensive information provided in the dossier and the detenu's acknowledgment of receipt.
Conclusion
The High Court's ruling in this case reaffirms the delicate balance between individual rights and the state's responsibility to maintain public order. While preventive detention is a serious measure that must be exercised with caution, the court found that in this instance, the authorities had acted within the bounds of the law, and the detenu's rights had not been infringed. This judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases where actions have the potential to incite communal tensions and disturb public peace.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.