Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 21: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the detention of Shakeel Ahmad Wani of Pethkoot, Beerwah, Budgam under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, holding that preventive detention is a precautionary measure which can legally operate independently of ordinary criminal prosecution.
Justice Shahzad Azeem, while dismissing HCP No. 116/2025, upheld the detention order dated April 28, 2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Budgam, under which Wani was detained with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The detenu was lodged in District Jail, Bhaderwah.
The petitioner had assailed the detention alleging non-application of mind, non-supply of relevant material and failure to provide the grounds and documents in Urdu or Kashmiri, thereby allegedly depriving him of his constitutional right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5).
The Government, represented by Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh, contested the plea and maintained that all constitutional and statutory safeguards had been complied with. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Tawheed Ahmad Sofi.
After examining the detention record, the High Court noted that the execution report recorded that the detention warrant, grounds of detention and supporting documents had been supplied to Wani and read over and explained to him in Kashmiri/Urdu. The record also showed that translated copies of the grounds and police dossier were supplied and their receipt acknowledged by the detenu.
The Court further noted that the material placed before the detaining authority referred to Wani's alleged involvement in FIR No. 225/2020, in which, according to the detention record, the accused including the detenu were allegedly working as Over Ground Workers for the banned terrorist outfit Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT).
The detention material further alleged that he continued to disseminate anti-national sentiments, share information regarding movement of security forces and police, and provide food, shelter, clothing and transportation to LeT terrorists. It also referred to preventive proceedings against him under Sections 126 and 170 of the BNSS during 2025.
Rejecting the argument that recourse to preventive detention was impermissible where ordinary criminal law was available, the High Court relied upon Supreme Court precedents to reiterate that preventive detention and criminal prosecution operate in distinct fields.
The Court observed that preventive detention is “qualitatively different from punitive detention” and is exercised in reasonable anticipation to prevent prejudicial activity. It noted that such detention may be ordered before, during or even after prosecution, discharge or acquittal, provided legal requirements are satisfied.
Justice Azeem held that the proceedings under Sections 126 and 170 BNSS immediately preceding the detention provided a “live and proximate link” with the activities alleged against the detenu and constituted relevant material for the detaining authority to exercise preventive powers.
The High Court also stressed that constitutional courts, while examining preventive detention orders, do not sit as appellate authorities over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Once an order is founded on relevant material and procedural safeguards have been followed, the Court said, it would not substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority.
Finding no violation of constitutional or statutory safeguards, the Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition and upheld the PSA detention order. (JNF) |
