Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Oct 22: High Court today quashed three detention orders of detenues passed under Public Safety Act and one detention under NDPS Act and directed the jail authorities to release them forthwith if not required in another case.
Justice Sindhu Sharma while dealing with three separate petitions quashed these detentions passed by District Magistrates Baramulla and Pulwama against the detenues Abdul Ahad Dar, Ajaz Ahmad Mir and Asrar Ahmad Lone and directed for their release from the custody forthwith unless they are not required in any other case.
The Habeas Corpus Petition had been filed against the detention orders passed under Section 8, clause (a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 with a view to prevent them from acting in any manner in the activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the state.
Court said the detenues have a valuable right to make a representation at the earliest against their order of detentions in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the Public Safety Act.
Court said the detenues thus, have to be communicated at the earliest that they have a right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority till the order of detention was approved. Court said as the detenues were not communicated this valuable right of making a representation before the Detaining Authority, this has resulted in an infraction of their valuable right and the detention would be vitiated.
Justice Sanjay Dhar also quashed the detention order of one Parvaiz Ahmad Malik passed under Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPSP) as the authorities have failed to file the counter affidavit and production of record despite number of opportunities granted by the court.
Court after enunciation of law on the issue said, it is clear that for detaining a person, who is already booked under sustentative offices, there must be compelling reasons to do so. In the instant case, the detaining Authority has, while passing the impugned order of detention, referred to the alleged incidents that had taken place more than two years prior to the passing of the said order.
The impugned order, court said, could not have been passed on the basis of stale incidents having no proximity to the date of the order. No reasons, much less compelling reason, for passing the impugned order have been brought to bear in the grounds of detention of the petitioner. “Thus, the impugned order of detention is legally unsustainable on this ground as well”, reads the judgment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel