news details |
|
|
| High Court upholds PSA of two | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Dec 28: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today upheld the detention under Public Safety Act of Ayaz Bashir Shergojri and Syed Tajamul Andrabi.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul while dismissing the two different petitions seeking quashing of PSA observed that the provisions of the Section 8, thus, clearly provide that it is the satisfaction of the state government on the point which alone is necessary to be established. It is significant that while the objects intended to be defeated are mentioned, the different methods, acts or omissions by which that can be done are not mentioned, as it is not humanly possible to give such an exhaustive list.
The judge observed that the satisfaction of the government, however, must be based on some grounds. There can be no satisfaction if there are no grounds for the same. There may be a divergence of opinion as to whether certain grounds are sufficient to bring about the satisfaction required by the section. One person may think one way, another the other way. If, therefore, the grounds on which it is stated that the state government was satisfied are such as a rational human being can consider connected in some manner with the objects which were to be prevented from being attained, the question of satisfaction except on the ground of mala fides cannot be challenged in a court.
It is not for the court to sit in the place of the government and try to determine if it would have come to the same conclusion as the government. As has been generally observed, this is a matter for subjective decision of the government and that cannot be substituted by an objective test in a court of law. Such detention orders are passed on information and materials which may not be strictly admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act in a court, but which the law, taking into consideration the needs and exigencies of administration, has allowed to be considered sufficient for subjective decision of the government, the judge observed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
