Srinagar, July 15 : The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that preventive detention is an exceptional legal measure that cannot be invoked as a routine administrative exercise, stressing that such extraordinary powers must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and with full adherence to constitutional safeguards.
Justice Rahul Bharti made the observations while quashing the preventive detention of a petitioner booked under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978, for allegedly engaging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
According to the case, the detention order was issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, on October 11, 2024, and executed on October 15, 2024. The petitioner challenged the legality of the detention before the High Court, arguing that the authorities had failed to establish any fresh grounds warranting his preventive detention.
After examining the record, the Court noted that the petitioner had earlier been detained under the PSA in 2022. However, the latest detention order was founded on a police dossier prepared only weeks after his release, without disclosing any fresh incident, new material, or subsequent conduct that could justify invoking preventive detention once again.
Justice Rahul Bharti observed that there was “no iota of doubt” that the authorities had acted with a predetermined intention to keep the petitioner incarcerated. The Court termed the detention “a sheer abuse of process of law” and held that the action could not withstand judicial scrutiny.
The High Court underscored that preventive detention directly affects a citizen’s fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution and, therefore, every detention order must satisfy strict constitutional requirements. It reiterated that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal proceedings or as a routine mechanism to keep an individual behind bars.
The Court further observed that constitutional protections demand that detention orders be supported by fresh, relevant, and legally sustainable material. In the absence of such grounds, continued detention amounts to an unjustified curtailment of personal liberty and violates the principles governing preventive detention.
Holding the impugned detention order legally unsustainable, the High Court quashed the PSA order and directed the authorities to release the detenu immediately, provided he is not required in connection with any other criminal case.
The judgment reaffirms the constitutional principle that preventive detention is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and with utmost constitutional sensitivity, ensuring that individual liberty is not curtailed without compelling and legally valid reasons.(KNC)
