Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 29: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the Public Safety Act detention of Saddam Husain, holding that preventive detention cannot be invoked in substitution of ordinary legal measures unless the detaining authority records compelling reasons showing why such proceedings are insufficient.
Allowing a Habeas Corpus petition, Justice Rajesh Sekhri set aside detention order No. PSA/159 dated May 21, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua, and directed the immediate release of the detenue from custody, provided he is not required in any other case.
Saddam Husain, presently lodged in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu, had challenged his detention under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act through his father, Mohd. Butt.
As per the detention dossier, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua, had described the detenue as an alleged overground worker, hardcore facilitator of terrorist activities and sympathiser of banned terrorist organisations. The authorities alleged that his activities were prejudicial to the security of the State and disturbed peace and tranquillity in the region.
The detention order was founded upon an FIR registered in 2019 at Police Station CID CI Jammu and preventive proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
The petitioner, through advocate Sanchit Verma, assailed the detention order on the grounds of non-application of mind, absence of compelling material, failure to supply relevant documents, reliance upon stale allegations and violation of his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the detention.
Opposing the petition, Government Advocate Suneel Malhotra submitted that the detention order had been passed after due consideration of the dossier forwarded by the SSP, Kathua, as the petitioner was allegedly involved in activities posing a persistent threat to the security of the State.
After examining the detention record, the High Court observed that preventive measures under the BNSS and detention under the PSA are distinct legal mechanisms and may co-exist. However, where a person is already facing preventive proceedings for good behaviour under ordinary criminal law, the detaining authority must disclose compelling reasons and independently apply its mind as to why those proceedings were insufficient.
The Court found that neither the sponsoring authority nor the District Magistrate had demonstrated why the preventive proceedings initiated against Saddam Husain were inadequate to prevent him from allegedly engaging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
The High Court also took exception to the delay in deciding the petitioner’s representation against his detention. His representation dated July 24, 2025, was received by the authorities on July 29, but was disposed of only on September 19 and communicated to him on October 11.
Holding that the unexplained delay of 50 days violated constitutional safeguards, the Court observed that consideration of a detenue’s representation is not an empty formality and must be undertaken with urgency, as it concerns the cherished right to liberty.
The Court held that the detention order was unsustainable from every angle and directed Saddam Husain’s immediate release from detention, unless he is involved in any other case.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
