news details |
|
|
| DB uphold PSA of anti-national | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Feb 7: Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta uphold the detention under PSA of Saqib Hussain who is motivator of jehad.
During the course of hearing GA, Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, has defended the passing of impugned detention order and has sought the outright rejection and dismissal of the appeal by vehemently articulating arguments, that all the documents/materials basing the passing of detention order have been supplied to the detenue, there has been subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority while passing the order of detention, it is argued that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is submitted that the detenue is a potential trouble maker and a strong motivator of jehad/terrorism and uses his good oratory skills to attract a large number of people especially in anti-national activities. It is further contended that the detenue is a sympathizer of militants and his activities have the potential of creating serious threat to the security of the Union Territory. He further submitted that in order to save the young people of the area from joining the path of militancy, detention of the detenue becomes imperative, as such, after through the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda, the detaining authority, after recording subjective satisfaction, issued the impugned order of detention.
Division Bench after hearing both the sides, while dismissin the appeal, observed that 17. It is settled proposition of law that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has a limited scope to scrutinize whether detention order has been passed on the material placed before it, and it cannot go further and examine the sufficiency of material. This Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Detaining Authority and cannot substitute its opinion over that of detaining authority when the grounds of detention are precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant as laid down by the Apex Court in case titled State of Punjab v. Sukhpal Singh.
In view of the preceding analysis, Division Bench is of the view that the impugned order of detention does not call for any interference by this Court. And the appeal is found without any merits and is dismissed accordingly. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, being a reasoned and detailed judgment, is accordingly upheld and so is the preventive detention order of the detenue.
—JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
