0

No court should tune out activities prejudicial to the security of the State or public order, being swayed by passion of mercy.: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh

The basis of detention is satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of likelihood of detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same as held by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh through the learned bench led by Hon’ble Mr Justice Tashi Rabstan in the case of Muntazir Ahmad Bhat Vs. Union Territory of JK & Anr. (WP (Crl) No. 105/2021)

The brief facts of the case are that District Magistrate Pulwama has placed one Muntazir Ahmad Bhat under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and has been lodged in Central Jail Kot Balwal Jammu. It is this order, the father of the detenu is aggrieved of and seeks quashment of the same on the grounds taken in the petition in hand. Case set up by the petitioner is that the detenu was arrested and detained under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 on a false and flimsy grounds without any justification in terms of the impugned detention order. It is also contended that the grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations. Further it is contended that the detenu has not been provided the material/documents relied upon by the detaining authority so as to make an effective representation before the detaining authority. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 vehemently resisting the petition.

After the perusal of the facts and arguments, the Hon’ble Court held, “Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from doing so, the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumra Goyal v. Union of India and others, 2005 (8) SCC 276, has held that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object of which being to prevent antisocial and subversive elements from imperiling welfare of the country or security of the nation or from disturbing public tranquility or from indulging in antinational activities or smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing so. In the backdrop of foregoing discussion, the petition is shorn of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat