J&K HC Reiterates Importance of Adherence To Technical Requirements of Preventive Laws

- Advertisement -
On 28th September 2020, Justices Rajesh Bindal and Rajnesh Oswal heard the case of Sartaj Ahmad Allie vs. State of J&K and others, via video-conferencing. The Court quashed the Detention Order. Further, it reiterated the importance of following the technical requirements of Preventive Laws.

Facts of the Case

The Respondents detained the Appellant under the provisions of the Public Safety Act, 1978. The Appellant challenged the same on various grounds. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petition and upheld the Detention Order. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant filed an instant intra-court appeal.

Arguments of the Appellant

The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the detaining learned Single Judge did not consider the grounds raised by the Appellant as the detaining authority did not supply the documents. The Appellant was not made to understand in his language. The Detention Order was in English, whereas the Appellant knew only Kashmiri and Urdu. Also, there was a delay in passing the Detention Order. The Appellant was not informed that he could make a representation against the Detention Order with the Government. The Appellant was already in custody when the Detention Order was passed. The necessity of passing the Detention Order was not satisfactory.

Arguments of the Respondent

The learned counsel for the Respondent argued that all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were supplied to the Appellant. He was also explained about the grounds of detention in Urdu. He was further informed about his Right to make representation against his detention. The Appellant signed the documents in English. He further argued that the Appellant was an overground worker of Laskar-i-Toiba, a banned militant outfit. He was involved in providing shelter and other logistic supports to the militants to carry out attacks on civilians and security forces. He was an Accused under Section 302 RPC, Sections 7 and 27 of Arms Act, Sections 10, 13 and 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. He had also been involved in an encounter. Further, there was no delay in passing the Detention Order. The learned Single Judge was therefore right in his Judgment.

Court’s Analysis

- Advertisement -

After perusal of the records, it was revealed that the Appellant was supplied with all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority. He was also made to understand the same in Urdu. Further, he was also informed about his Right to make representation. However, the Appellant was already in custody while the Detention Order was passed. Further, there was no satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority while passing the Detention Order. The learned Single Judge though discussed the Appellant being in custody at the time of passing of Detention Order but did not deal with the issue in the right perspective. The appeal was allowed on this ground.

Additionally, the Court reiterated the importance of following the technical requirements of Preventive Laws. The Detention Orders issued on the grounds of threat to the security and integrity of the State were quashed due to non-adherence to technical requirements.

Court’s Decision

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Detention Order passed by the Respondents against the Appellants for the aforestated reasons. 


- Advertisement -

Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

- Advertisement -

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

About the Author

Other Posts from this Author

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -