Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 25: Justice MA Chowdhary has rejected the plea to quash the detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA) of Saqib Hussain Mir, a strong motivator of jihad/terrorism who utilizes his persuasive oratory skills to attract a significant number of individuals, particularly for anti-national activities.
The case revolves around the detenu’s actions on June 21, 2022, when he incited the youth of a specific community to join jihad, claiming that his father, who was previously booked by Peer Mitha Police, had joined militancy and that he also intended to follow the path of jihad. This created an atmosphere of insecurity among the concerned community and other peace-loving residents of the area, as the detenu attempted to disrupt communal harmony, peace, and tranquility. The incident was reported under DDR No.12 dated June 21, 2022, at Police Post Karara. On June 22, 2022, the detenu continued to instigate locals to join jihad, aiming to create a hostile environment against the country.
A report was filed under DDR No.08 dated June 22, 2022, at Police Post Premnagar. Additionally, on June 24, 2022, the detenu persistently urged locals to join jihad and claimed that he would contact Khubaib, a handler from Pakistan, to secure his father’s release. A report was lodged under DDR No.04 dated June 24, 2022, at Police Station Thathri.
After hearing the arguments presented by Adv Prince Khanna on behalf of the petitioner and Govt Advocate Adarsh Bhagat for the Union Territory (UT), Justice MA Chowdhary noted that the grounds of detention clearly demonstrate the detenu’s efforts to persuade local youth to engage in militancy and his organization of meetings to instigate them in the name of jihad. Considering the activities of the detenu, the Detaining Authority issued the detention order after careful consideration and subjective satisfaction, which cannot be challenged.
The court further emphasized that personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps even more crucial than other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution included safeguards in Article 22 to restrict the State’s power to detain an individual without trial, thus humanizing the authority over individual liberty. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the power to detain a person without trial for the security of the State or maintenance of public order must be strictly interpreted. However, when individual liberty conflicts with the interests of national security or public order, the liberty of the individual must yield to the greater interest of the nation.