A Division Bench of this Court has held that delay in the execution of a warrant of detention without any plausible explanation is bound to defeat and even subvert the very safeguards contained in Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.: Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court passed a judgement on the 30th of September, 2022 in which the petition was upheld and the impugned order was not sustained. This was seen in the case of Navjot Singh Alias Bablu vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir And Others (WP(Crl) No.11/2022). The case was presided over by The Honourable Mr Justice Sanjay Dhar.                                                       


By the medium of the instant petition, the petitioner has thrown a challenge to the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu. The petitioner has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in central jail.

 It has been contended by the detenu that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically, without application of mind, and there was no compelling circumstance for the Detaining Authority to pass the impugned order of detention. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied and there has been a delay of more than four months in passing the impugned order of detention after the receipt of the report of the sponsoring agency and a further delay of five months in executing the impugned order of detention regarding which there is no explanation from the respondents.

The respondents have opposed the petition by filing a counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, it has been contended that all the constitutional and statutory safeguards were adhered to by the Detaining Authority while passing the impugned order of detention. It is submitted that the entire material was furnished to the detenu and he was also informed about his right to make representation against the order of detention.


The court’s finding was that in their reply affidavit, the respondents have not stated anything as to why the warrant of detention could not be executed on the petitioner during the aforesaid period. The court said it was clear that the impugned order of detention was not sustainable in law and the respondents were directed to release the detenu from preventive detention, provided he is not required in connection with any other case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to view the judgement

Leave a Reply

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