Early Times Report
JAMMU, Apr 23: In a significant ruling on personal liberty, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of Rajouri resident Mohd. Kabir under the PIT-NDPS Act, holding that liberty cannot be curtailed in a mechanical manner and that preventive detention cannot be invoked on vague and specious grounds.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri allowed the habeas corpus petition filed through the detenue's elder brother and set aside detention order No. PITNDPS 36 of 2025 dated June 16, 2025, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. The petitioner was represented by Rahul Raina, Advocate, while the respondents were represented by Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
The Court noted that the detention was based on a dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rajouri, citing two FIRs and several DDR entries alleging involvement in drug-related activities. It also recorded that proceedings under Section 129 BNSS had already been initiated against the petitioner and that he had been enlarged on bail by the Executive Magistrate on May 31, 2025, just 16 days before the detention order was passed.
The High Court found that neither the sponsoring authority nor the detaining authority had recorded any compelling reason as to why the security proceedings under Section 129 BNSS were insufficient to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. The Court said that though such proceedings and preventive detention may co-exist in law, the detaining authority must show independent application of mind and compelling reasons before resorting to such an extraordinary measure.
In strong terms, the Court observed that the State cannot be allowed to whittle down the liberty of citizens in a mechanical and arbitrary fashion, adding that preventive detention cannot be used by the executive in a perfunctory manner to "clip the wings" of an individual unless there is an emergency-based justification which ordinary laws cannot address.
Holding that the detaining authority had also failed to appreciate that the PIT-NDPS Act is preventive and not punitive in nature, the Court termed it a case of non-application of mind, quashed the detention order and directed the immediate release of the petitioner.
(JNF) |
