Authorities need to guard citizens’ fundamental rights, not to allow deprivation: HC

Srinagar, March 17: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has held that the state and its authorities though competent to pass detention orders under law but at the same time they are required to guard the fundamental rights of the citizens and not allow its “deprivation by fakes” as they have reposed trust in them.

“An authority, be it State or its officer competent to pass detention order having a constitutional trust reposed in it from the end of the citizens of India that the State and its authorities they would guard the enjoyment of the fundamental right of the citizens to the fullest extent possible and not allow its deprivation by fakes,” Justice Rahul Bharti said in his judgment.

The Court’s remarks came in response to a habeas corpus plea by a man from South Kashmir’s Pulwama district, who had questioned his detention under Public Safety Act on the ground that the same was slapped against him on the basis of “surmises”.

21 year old Yawar Ahmed Bhat through his father had challenged the detention order dated 12.05.2023 that the District Magistrate, Pulwama had passed in exercise of power under section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

“From the dossier as served by the SSP Pulwama and literally borrowed word by word by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, it is, ex facie, forthcoming that there is nothing in the name of factual content spared and stated in the dossier and in the grounds of detention against the petitioner,” the court said.

“In fact, the dossier as well as the grounds of detention just amount to profiling of the petitioner in a bad light without setting forth as to on which factual basis served by the SSP Pulwama, the petitioner’s personal liberty was so reckoned to be prejudicial to the security of the State,” it added.

Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ujagar Singh versus State of Punjab, 1951 SCC 170, the court underscored that vagueness of grounds is a well accepted basis for quashing preventive detention. “The mandate of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case squarely applies in the present case”, it said.

The Court noted that the dossier against the petitioner was of sweeping and generalised nature and so were the grounds of the detention framed by the District Magistrate.

“In fact, it would be safe to say that the District Magistrate, Pulwama abandoned an independent exercise of his mind in dealing with the dossier submitted by the SSP Pulwama against the petitioner and simply repeated verbatim the tone and tenor of the dossier to inflict the preventive detention order upon the petitioner as if preventive detention custody is just a matter of asking by the sponsoring law enforcement authority to be instantaneously delivered by the preventive detention authority” the court said.

While concluding that the detention order against the petitioner was bereft of any factual basis, the court quashed the same and ordered that the petitioner is set free.

“The Superintendent of the Jail concerned, where the petitioner is being detained, is directed to set the petitioner free. It is mandated upon the District Magistrate, Pulwama, to ensure that the petitioner is released from the jail concerned wherever the petitioner is presently lodged,” the court said.