High Court of Jammu & Kashmir Quashes Preventive Detention Under Public Safety Act: “Subjective Satisfaction Must Be Based on Fresh Facts,” Rules Reusing Grounds from Quashed Orders as Invalid and Orders Immediate Release of Detenu

Court’s Decision:

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed the preventive detention order (PSA 34 of 2023) issued against the detenu under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The court held that once grounds of detention have been quashed, they cannot be relied upon again, either fully or partially, for subsequent detention orders. It directed the detenu’s release unless required in connection with another case.

Facts:

1. Background:
   • The detenu was initially detained under Order No. PITNDPS 01 of 2023 based on three FIRs:
     • FIR No. 68/2018 under Sections 8/21/22 NDPS Act.
     • FIR No. 139/2019 under Sections 8/21/22/27 NDPS Act.
     • FIR No. 250/2000 under Sections 8/21/22 NDPS Act.
   • This detention order was quashed by the High Court on 25.08.2023 in WP(Crl) No. 07/2023 due to lack of proper justification.
2. New Detention Order:
   • A second detention order (PSA 34 of 2023) was issued on 12.12.2023, citing the earlier FIRs along with an additional FIR (No. 115/2023) under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the RPC.
3. Allegations in FIR No. 115/2023:
   • This FIR was based on an interpersonal conflict where the detenu allegedly assaulted the complainant, tore his clothes, and caused injuries.
4. Challenge:
   • The detenu challenged the second detention order, arguing that it was based on previously quashed grounds and lacked fresh justification.

Issues:

1. Whether the grounds of a previously quashed detention order can be used for subsequent detention orders.
2. Whether the detaining authority applied its mind adequately while issuing the fresh detention order.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The detenu argued that the new detention order relied on the same grounds as the quashed order, violating judicial principles established by the Supreme Court.
• The detaining authority failed to consider that the detenu had already been granted bail in the FIRs cited, undermining the claim that his detention was necessary to maintain public order.
• The detenu alleged non-compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5), including failure to provide all material relied upon.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The government asserted that the detention order was valid and complied with all procedural safeguards under the PSA.
• It argued that the detenu was informed of his right to make an effective representation and that the order aimed to prevent activities prejudicial to public order.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Grounds of a Quashed Detention Order:
   • The court referred to the settled legal principle that grounds of a quashed detention order cannot be reused to justify a subsequent detention order. This was affirmed in:
     • Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar v. N.L. Kalna: Fresh detention orders must be based on entirely new grounds.
     • Jahangir Khan Fazal Khan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad: Quashed grounds lose their validity and cannot contribute to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
2. Relevance of New Grounds:
   • The court found that FIR No. 115/2023, which alleged personal disputes between the detenu and the complainant, failed to demonstrate activities prejudicial to public order.
3. Application of Mind:
   • The court criticized the detaining authority for failing to consider that the detenu had been granted bail in the earlier FIRs, which undermined the justification for preventive detention.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar v. N.L. Kalna:
   • Grounds of a quashed detention order cannot be re-used.
2. Jahangir Khan Fazal Khan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad:
   • Quashed grounds must not contribute to the subjective satisfaction for fresh detention orders.

Court’s Reasoning:

• The court emphasized that a detention order must be based on fresh, valid grounds.
• The repetition of quashed grounds in the new order demonstrated non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
• The interpersonal nature of the dispute in FIR No. 115/2023 did not justify preventive detention under the PSA.
• Failure to consider the detenu’s bail status further demonstrated non-application of mind.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the detention order and directed the detenu’s release, provided he was not required in any other case.

Implications:

1. Judicial Oversight: This judgment underscores the role of courts in scrutinizing preventive detention orders to ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards.
2. Fresh Grounds Requirement: Detaining authorities must base preventive detention orders on fresh, substantial grounds, avoiding reliance on previously nullified justifications.
3. Protection Against Misuse: The judgment reinforces protections against arbitrary detention, emphasizing the necessity of proper application of mind and procedural compliance.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Prosecution in Franchise Dispute: “Civil Dispute Over Security Deposit and Commission Cannot Be Dressed as Cheating or Breach of Trust”