Srinagar, July 26: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that a person’s discharge in a criminal case does not automatically prevent authorities from invoking the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) if fresh intelligence inputs indicate continued involvement in activities posing a threat to public order or the security of the Union Territory.
The observation was made by Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi while dismissing a habeas corpus petition that challenged a preventive detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Kupwara, under the Public Safety Act.
According to the case, the petitioner argued that the detention order had been passed solely on the basis of a criminal case from which he had already been discharged. It was further contended that no fresh allegations had surfaced after his release and, therefore, there was no justification for invoking preventive detention.
Rejecting the plea, the High Court held that the detention record clearly demonstrated that the detaining authority was fully aware of the discharge order as well as the legal challenge connected to that case. The Court observed that this reflected proper application of mind, rejecting the allegation that the detention order had been issued mechanically.
The Court further noted that intelligence reports placed before the detaining authority revealed that, after his release from the criminal case, the petitioner allegedly continued to engage in activities considered prejudicial to security. These reports, received from field agencies, formed part of the official detention record and provided sufficient material for the authority to arrive at its subjective satisfaction before issuing the PSA order.
Emphasising the distinction between criminal prosecution and preventive detention, the High Court observed that the objective of preventive detention is not to punish a person for past actions but to prevent future conduct likely to endanger public order or security. It held that fresh intelligence indicating continued involvement in subversive activities can independently justify preventive detention, irrespective of the outcome of an earlier criminal case.
The Bench observed that, in view of the subsequent intelligence inputs, the detaining authority was justified in passing the detention order to prevent the petitioner from allegedly continuing activities detrimental to security after his release.
Finding no procedural irregularity or legal infirmity in the detention order, the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition and upheld the preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act.
Advocates Zamir Abdullah and Zahir Abdullah represented the petitioner, while Government Advocate Faheem Nisar Shah appeared on behalf of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.(KNC)
