Jammu and Kashmir High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Order Against Accused for Supporting Terrorist Activities: “Normal Criminal Law Was Not Sufficient to Deter Him”

Court’s Decision:

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed the petition challenging the preventive detention order issued under the Public Safety Act (PSA) against the petitioner. The court upheld the detention, emphasizing that normal criminal law measures were insufficient to prevent the petitioner from engaging in anti-national activities, even after being charged with substantive offenses.

Facts:

The petitioner was placed under preventive detention by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, under order No. 12/DMP/PSA/24 dated 01.02.2024. This order was issued with the objective of preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the state. The petitioner challenged the detention on constitutional grounds, arguing that the materials forming the basis for the detention were not supplied to him and that he was not informed of his right to make an effective representation.

Issues:

1. Whether the petitioner’s right to make an effective representation against the detention order was violated due to the non-supply of relevant material.
2. Whether there were compelling reasons for invoking preventive detention despite the petitioner being booked under substantive offenses.
3. Whether the grounds for detention were vague and lacked sufficient particulars to justify preventive detention.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner, through his counsel, contended:

1. That the material forming the basis of the detention order was not provided to him, thereby preventing him from making an effective representation.
2. That since the petitioner was already booked for substantive offenses, there were no compelling reasons to resort to preventive detention under the PSA.
3. That the grounds of detention were vague, lacking in particulars, and insufficient for the petitioner to make an informed representation.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, argued that:

1. All constitutional safeguards were adhered to, and the detention order was passed validly and legally.
2. The petitioner was provided with all necessary materials, including the grounds for detention, and the same were explained to him in his native language.
3. The petitioner’s representation against the detention order was duly considered and rejected on legitimate grounds.

Analysis of the Law:

The court considered the petitioner’s challenge under the PSA and reviewed whether procedural safeguards had been violated. It examined the detention record, which revealed that the petitioner had been provided with 25 leaves of documentation, including the detention order, grounds for detention, and copies of relevant FIRs and witness statements. The materials were explained to the petitioner in Urdu and Kashmiri, negating the claim that he was deprived of his right to an effective representation.

Precedent Analysis:

The court relied on established jurisprudence that allows preventive detention when regular criminal law measures fail to prevent an individual from engaging in harmful activities. Previous judgments have upheld preventive detention in cases where there is an imminent threat to public order or national security, particularly when individuals continue with unlawful activities despite facing criminal charges.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court found that the petitioner was actively involved in providing logistical support to terrorists, including his brother, who was a member of the banned organization AGUH. The petitioner had repeatedly been involved in anti-national activities despite being booked under FIR No. 46/2020 for offenses under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The court emphasized that the preventive detention order was necessary, as regular criminal proceedings had not deterred the petitioner.

The court dismissed the argument that the grounds for detention were vague, noting that the petitioner had been informed of specific details regarding his involvement with terrorist organizations. Additionally, the court rejected the claim that the petitioner’s representation had not been considered, as the detention record showed that the representation was reviewed and rejected by the District Magistrate.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the preventive detention order was legally and procedurally sound. The petitioner’s rights to make an effective representation were not violated, and there were sufficient reasons to justify his preventive detention under the PSA.

Implications:

This decision reinforces the principle that preventive detention can be invoked when regular criminal law is insufficient to curb activities prejudicial to national security. It highlights the judiciary’s support for stringent measures in cases involving terrorism, where preventive detention is deemed necessary to protect public order.

Also Read – Uttarakhand High Court, Exercising Supervisory Powers Under Article 227, Orders Expeditious Disposal of Temporary Injunction Application Pending for Several Months Under Order XXXIX CPC, Citing Lack of Justification for Further Delay