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

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Follow us

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

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. 


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.

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.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -