*Upholds detention under PSA
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Oct 11: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of Abdul Qayoom alias Bittu, a resident of Kadwah village in Udhampur district, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), observing that the detaining authority had applied its mind properly and that the detention order was based on sufficient material indicating the petitioner’s involvement in activities prejudicial to the security of J&K.
Justice M A Chowdhary, while pronouncing the judgment, dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by the detenue through his nephew, Mohd. Imran, challenging the detention order No. 14-PSA-2024 dated December 24, 2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Udhampur.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sanchit Verma, had sought quashing of the detention order on multiple grounds, including non-supply of complete material relied upon by the detaining authority, absence of a proximate link between old criminal cases and the preventive detention, and alleged violation of his constitutional right to make a representation against the detention.
On the other hand, the respondents represented by Government Advocate Sumeet Bhatia submitted that the detenue was an Over Ground Worker (OGW), maintaining contact with banned organizations and anti-national elements operating from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). They argued that despite his past acquittals, his activities continued to be prejudicial to public peace and security in the Basantgarh and Udhampur regions.
Rejecting the petitioner’s claims, the High Court noted that all relevant documents, including the detention order, notice, grounds of detention, FIR copies, witness statements and dossier had been duly supplied to the detenue and explained to him in Hindi/Dogri, the language he understood. His acknowledgment signatures were also on record.
Citing multiple Supreme Court judgments, Justice Chowdhary reiterated that preventive detention is a precautionary and preventive measure not punitive or reformative and intended to forestall individuals from endangering national security and public tranquility.
“The aim of preventive detention is not to punish a person for what he has done, but to intercept and prevent him from doing so”, the High Court observed, emphasizing that preventive detention powers are exercised in anticipation, and that courts cannot substitute their own satisfaction for that of the detaining authority.
The Judge further underscored that while the Constitution guarantees personal liberty, such liberty is not absolute and must yield when it conflicts with the security of the State or maintenance of public order.
Holding that the detention order was issued after due application of mind and based on cogent material, Justice Chowdhary concluded that no legal infirmity existed in the process followed by the District Magistrate, Udhampur. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition was dismissed.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
