The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, in nullifying a public detention order under the Public Safety Act (PSA), has underscored the significance of due process and criticized authorities for resorting to preventive detention instead of challenging bail, Live Law reported.
The court, led by Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, emphasized that if authorities anticipate that a released individual might engage in criminal activities, they should oppose the bail application or challenge a potential bail grant in higher courts.
Preventive detention, the court stressed, should not be a hasty reaction solely based on the possibility of bail. These observations arose during the hearing of a plea challenging a detention order under the Jammu Kashmir PSA 1978.
The central argument revolved around the vagueness and lack of specificity in the grounds of detention. The petitioner contended that the detaining authority failed to attribute specific allegations against the detainee, rendering the order cryptic and indefinite. Additionally, the petitioner highlighted the failure to provide relevant material, such as the dossier and copies of FIRs, relied upon to justify the detention.
The petitioner argued that this omission impeded the detainee’s ability to make an effective representation against the detention order, as guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the Act.
Justice Koul, after careful consideration of arguments from both sides, delved into the procedural lapses surrounding the detention. The court stressed the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases, emphasizing that they serve as the primary safeguards available to the detainee.
He further emphasized that preventive detention orders should not be passed merely on the apprehension that the accused, if released on bail, may resume criminal activities. The court recorded that if the detaining authority is concerned about the possibility of the detainee resuming criminal activities after bail, they should oppose the bail application and challenge any granted bail in a higher forum.
Critically, the court scrutinized the proximity between the alleged prejudicial activities and the issuance of the detention order. Finding a lack of a cogent explanation for undue delay and a failure to establish a live link between the activities and the purpose of detention, the court deemed the detention order unsustainable.
In light of these observations, the court quashed the detention order and directed the authorities to release the petitioner forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case.