The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed the order of preventive detention issued against the petitioner where he argued that the grounds of detention were vague and lacked specificity. The Court held that "detention in preventive custody on the basis of such vague and ambiguous grounds of detention cannot be justified."
Facts of the Case:
The case involves a writ petition which sought the quashing of the order of preventive detention of Mr. Fayaz Ahmad Wani, the petitioner. The detention was based on the grounds that the petitioner’s activities posed a threat to the security of the State.
The respondents filed a reply affidavit defending the detention order. They argued that the petitioner’s actions were indeed highly prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory, justifying his preventive detention. They reiterated the activities mentioned in the grounds of detention and refuted claims that the petitioner was not provided with all the relevant material relied upon by the detaining authority.
Contentions of the Parties:
- Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the allegations within the grounds of detention were vague and lacked specificity. The petitioner argued that the absence of particular details, such as dates and the identities of individuals involved, made it impossible for a prudent person to effectively respond to these allegations. It was also emphasized that the petitioner had no previous criminal record, and there were no registered FIRs related to any prejudicial activities. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed that he was not provided with all the material relied upon by the detaining authority.
- Respondent's Argument: The respondents argued that the petitioner’s actions posed a significant threat to the security of the Union Territory. They maintained that the grounds of detention were justified and based on legitimate concerns. The respondents refuted the claims that the petitioner was inadequately informed of the material used to justify his detention.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court undertook a close examination of the grounds of detention and the relevant documents provided in the record. The Court mentioned that the grounds of detention lacked critical details such as specific dates and the identities of individuals associated with the alleged prejudicial activities.
The Court highlighted the Constitutional imperatives of Article 22(5) and the dual obligation imposed on the authority making the order of preventive detention:
- The detaining authority must, as soon as may be, i.e. as soon as practicable, after the detention order is passed, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, and
- The detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making the representation against the order of detention, i.e. to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make a representation which, on being considered, may obtain relief to him.
The Court cited the judgment in the case of Mohammad Yousuf Rather Vs. The State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors[1] and explained that in both cases, the inclusion of any irrelevant or obscure ground alongside pertinent and clear ones violates the detenu's constitutional rights. This violation grants the detenu the right to seek relief from the Court. The Court cannot assess the sufficiency of the grounds or replace its judgment with the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. Even one irrelevant ground among multiple distinct grounds renders the entire detention order invalid. Since the satisfaction of the detaining authority is subjective, it's impossible to determine if the order would have been issued without the irrelevant data. An irrelevant ground is enough to nullify the order, as its impact on the authority's satisfaction cannot be determined.
The Court also considered the claim that the petitioner was not provided with all the material relied upon by the detaining authority. After examining the detention record, which included an ‘Execution Report’ and a ‘Receipt of Grounds of detention & other relevant record,’ the Court found that the petitioner had been given copies of the FIR, statements of witnesses, and other relevant documents. The Court referred to the judgment in the case of Jai Singh and ors vs. the State of J&K[2] to establish that, "grounds of detention and dossier, if in similar language, go on to show that there has been non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority".
The Court also identified a significant discrepancy between the grounds of detention and the documents provided. This discrepancy indicated a lack of proper application of mind by the detaining authority.
The Decision of the Court:
The High Court concluded that the detention order was invalid. As a result, the impugned detention order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to release the petitioner immediately.
Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Wani vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justices Vinod Chatterji Koul
Case No.: Writ Petition (Crl) No. 450 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Mansoor Ah Mir
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Fameem Ahmad Shah
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :