news details |
|
|
| HC quashes PSA detention, holds case falls within 'Law and Order' domain | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 18: In a significant judgment safeguarding personal liberty, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of an Udhampur resident under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), holding that the case, at best, pertained to "law and order" and not "public order."
Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani passed the order in HCP No. 68/2025, titled Lakhit Ali alias Liayat Ali vs Union Territory of J&K and others, and set aside detention order No. 03-PSA-2025 dated April 11, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Udhampur. The court directed that the detenue be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
The petitioner, a resident of Village Sermnajla Mahni, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Udhampur, had challenged his detention through his father, arguing that the order was passed mechanically without any real necessity and that the allegations relied upon by the authorities did not justify preventive detention under the PSA. The petition pointed out that out of seven FIRs cited against him, six had already been disposed of, while one NDPS case and one complaint under Section 129 BNSS were stated to be pending.
Appearing for the petitioner, A. R. Khan, Advocate, argued that the allegations against the detenue related only to breaches of ordinary law and order and could not be elevated to the level of disturbance of public order. On the other hand, the respondents were represented by Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, Government Advocate.
The High Court observed that the alleged activities attributed to the detenue may present a law and order situation to be dealt with under ordinary criminal law, but could not justify preventive detention on the pretext of public disorder. The court further held that the detaining authority had failed to properly apply its mind before issuing the detention order.
The court also noted that it was for the detaining authority to show how normal criminal law had become inadequate in dealing with the accused, especially when he was already facing criminal proceedings and had been granted bail. The judgment records that there was no claim from the respondents that the detenue had violated bail conditions or that the bail orders had been unsuccessfully challenged.
While allowing the habeas corpus petition, the High Court reiterated that preventive detention is an exceptional measure and cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary legal process. The ruling is being seen as an important reaffirmation of the distinction between "law and order" and "public order" in preventive detention cases.
(JNF)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
