Jammu and Kashmir High Court Upholds Preventive Detention: Grounds Were Clear, Procedural Safeguards Followed, and No Compelling Grounds for Interference with Detention of Alleged Terrorist Supporter

Court’s Decision
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed the petition challenging the preventive detention of the petitioner under the Public Safety Act (PSA), holding that the order of detention was justified. The court found that the material forming the grounds of detention had been properly provided to the detenue and that the petitioner had not been hindered from making a representation. The court held that the preventive detention was necessary to deter the petitioner from engaging in anti-national activities.

Facts
The petitioner was detained under the PSA by the District Magistrate of Pulwama through an order dated February 1, 2024, to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the state. The petitioner challenged the detention order on various grounds, including the non-supply of relevant material, the vague nature of the grounds of detention, and the failure of the authorities to consider his representation.

The petitioner had earlier been booked for substantive offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and had preventive measures taken against him in 2021 and 2023 under Sections 107 and 151 of the Cr.P.C. Despite this, the petitioner continued his alleged involvement in anti-national activities, including providing logistical support to terrorists associated with banned organizations like Jash-e-Mohammad.

Issues

1. Whether the material forming the basis of the grounds of detention was provided to the petitioner.
2. Whether there were compelling reasons for the preventive detention when the petitioner had already been booked for substantive offenses.
3. Whether the representation against the detention order was considered.
4. Whether the grounds of detention were vague, hindering the petitioner’s ability to make an effective representation.

Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the grounds of detention and supporting material had not been provided to him, violating his constitutional rights and hindering his ability to make an effective representation. The petitioner also contended that there were no compelling reasons for preventive detention as he had already been booked for substantive offenses. Lastly, the petitioner claimed that his representation against the detention had not been considered by the authorities.

Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents maintained that all safeguards had been adhered to, and the material forming the basis of the detention had been duly provided to the petitioner. They argued that preventive detention was justified, given the petitioner’s continued involvement in anti-national activities despite earlier preventive measures and criminal proceedings. They further submitted that the petitioner’s representation had been considered and rejected in a timely manner.

Analysis of the Law
The court emphasized that preventive detention serves a different purpose than punitive detention and is justified when regular criminal proceedings fail to prevent individuals from engaging in activities that threaten the state’s security. The court referred to the legal standards governing preventive detention under the PSA and the procedural safeguards required to ensure that detainees are given a fair opportunity to contest their detention.

Precedent Analysis
The court upheld the validity of preventive detention even when the individual in question is facing criminal charges, provided that the preventive measures are necessary to prevent further threats to public order or state security. The court’s reasoning aligned with previous decisions, where preventive detention was allowed under similar circumstances.

Court’s Reasoning
The court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the grounds of detention were vague. It pointed out that the petitioner had been clearly informed of his involvement in supporting terrorist activities, including providing logistic support to banned organizations and staying in contact with terrorists. The court found that the material forming the basis of the detention, including FIRs and witness statements, had been supplied to the petitioner in both Urdu and Kashmiri. The court also noted that the petitioner had made a representation, which was rejected after due consideration, proving that his right to make an effective representation had not been violated.

Conclusion
The court dismissed the petition, finding that the preventive detention was justified given the petitioner’s continued involvement in anti-national activities, despite earlier preventive measures and criminal proceedings. The court concluded that all procedural safeguards had been followed, and the petitioner had not been deprived of his rights.

Implications
This judgment reaffirms the importance of preventive detention in cases where ordinary criminal proceedings are insufficient to deter individuals from engaging in activities that threaten state security. The court also emphasized the importance of following procedural safeguards to ensure that detainees are given a fair opportunity to challenge their detention.

Also Read – Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition, Relegates Petitioners to Appeal Under Rule 15 of Uttarakhand Minerals Rules, 2021, with 15-Day Stay on Penalty for Illegal Storage of Minor Minerals