Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 31: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that registration of an FIR is not a mandatory prerequisite for ordering preventive detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA), observing that preventive detention is intended to prevent activities prejudicial to security rather than punish offences already committed.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by Aijaz Ahmad Rather, upheld detention order No. 32/DMP/PSA/25 dated May 7, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, on allegations of activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
The petitioner had challenged his detention on several grounds, primarily contending that no FIR had been registered against him and that the detention order was based on vague, stale and irrelevant allegations without any live or proximate connection with his activities.
The respondents, however, maintained that the petitioner was allegedly functioning as an Over Ground Worker (OGW) for active terrorist Ehsan-ul-Haq of Murran, Pulwama, and providing logistical assistance to facilitate his movement and evade arrest.
After examining the detention record, Justice Oswal rejected the contention that an FIR must necessarily precede preventive detention.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, the Court observed that preventive detention and criminal prosecution operate in different fields. While criminal prosecution deals with punishment for offences already committed, preventive detention seeks to prevent anticipated activities prejudicial to public interest or security.
The Court further observed that OGWs generally operate covertly to escape detection by security agencies and that direct evidence of their activities may not always be available. Intelligence reports, therefore, often constitute the primary source of information regarding such activities.
Justice Oswal noted that the sponsoring agency had specifically identified the terrorist to whom the petitioner was allegedly providing logistical support and that the detaining authority had considered the relevant material before issuing the detention order.
The Court held that the grounds of detention could not be considered vague merely because no criminal case had been registered against the petitioner.
It further observed that while exercising judicial review in preventive detention matters, the High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority when such satisfaction is based on relevant material.
Regarding procedural safeguards, the Court found that the detention documents had been supplied to the petitioner on May 8, 2025, and that he had been informed about his right to make representations before the competent authorities.
The Court also noted that the petitioner’s representation dated May 19, 2025, was rejected by the detaining authority on May 20, while the representation submitted through his wife was rejected by the Government on June 6, 2025.
Finding no illegality or procedural infirmity warranting judicial interference, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the preventive detention order.
Advocate M. Amin Khan appeared for the petitioner, while M. Younis Hafeez, Assisting Counsel, represented the respondents. (JNF) |
