Preventive detention devised to afford protection to society: HC

Excelsior Correspondent

Srinagar, Nov 13: High Court has upheld the detention of a detene by observing that those who are responsible for national security or for maintenance of public order must be the sole judges of what the national security, public order or security of the State requires.
Justice Tashi Rabstan while dismissing the petition of detenue-Muntazir Ahmad Bhat of Pulwama and upholding his detention said, the grounds of detention reveals that the detenue met with various banned organisations and developed radical ideology. The organization has motivated the detenue to work for their unlawful organization and extended all possible logistic support to the militants enabling them to carry out the attack in the area successfully.
Activities of individuals or a group of individuals, court recorded are prejudicial to the security of the State or public order, have magnitude of across-the-board disfigurement of societies as such no court should tune out such activities, being swayed by passion of mercy. “It is an obligation of the court to constantly remind itself the right of society is never maltreated or marginalised by doings, an individual or set of individuals propagate and carry out”, Justice Tashi said.
“Thereafter, the detenue was apprehended just to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. Further there is a likelihood of his recycling into subversive activities. As such, it will make difficult for the security forces to maintain the public order and safeguard the security of the State and to return the normalcy in the valley”, reads the judgment.
“Germane to mention here that if one looks at the acts, the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, is designed for, is to prevent, they are all these acts that are prejudicial to security of the State or maintenance of public order. The acts, indulged in by persons, who act in concert with other persons and quite often such activity has national level ramifications”, reads the judgment.
Court said, though violent behaviour is not new, the contemporary extremism and radicalism in its full incarnation have obtained a different character and poses extraordinary threats to civilized world and the basic edifices of a modern State, like democracy, State security, public order, rule of law, sovereignty and integrity, basic human rights, are under attack of such extreme, radical acts. Though phenomenon of extremism, radicalism, fanatism is complex, a terrorist or such like an act is easily identifiable when it does occur. The core meaning of the term is clear even if its exact frontiers are not.