The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has rejected the petition of a detenue, who had challenged his detention order by stating that divulging sensitive information on detention order of a person arrested under the Public Safety Act (PSA) may prove counter-productive to the maintenance of normalcy and security in the Valley, while also becoming a great threat to the nation, lest it lands in the hands of a separatist group.
The Bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Moksha Kazmi Khajuria made the above remarks while hearing the petition by a 27-year-old, who was detained on the directions of the District Magistrate Pulwama on October 30, 2021, in order to prevent him from indulging in any subversive activity prejudicial to the security of the state.
The High Court ruled that vagueness of grounds of detention cannot be considered without keeping in view the situation prevailing in the area specially in Kashmir, which has been greatly affected by militancy in the past.
It noted that a plain reading of the grounds of detention would establish that the allegations made against the petitioner-appellant were very specific and there was no vagueness in the same.
It added that the grounds of detention clearly stated that the youth was ‘affiliated’ with The Resistance Front (TRF), an organisation working with the aim and object to ‘secede the Union Territory of JK from the Union Territory of India’ and ‘annex it with Pakistan’.
The two-Judge Bench observed that the dossier specifically pointed that the accused was “in connivance” with the terrorists and providing them with logistic support, including transportation of arms for terrorists from one place to another through unconventional and safe passages.
The High Court added that the accused has been identified after “hard coordinated efforts of the various agencies, which revealed his linkage with terrorist outlets”.
However, the court accepted the argument that the detenu was not provided complete material, like the dossier relied upon by the District Magistrate in passing the impugned order, making him unable to file an effective and purposeful representation.
The Bench then allowed the appeal setting aside the verdict and order of the writ court and the impugned order of detention.
Earlier, the accused had challenged the detention order before a Single-Judge bench, which after considering the matter, dismissed his plea and upheld the detention on May 12, 2022.
Case title: Murtaza Rashid vs UT of J&K