The Jammu & Kashmir High Court observed that Article 22 aims to save society from activities that are likely to deprive many people of their right to life and personal liberty as it leaves room for the detention of a person without any formal charge or trial. Article 22 leaves scope for the enactment of preventive detention laws. The interest of the larger public outweighs the liberty of an individual. The bench noted that the period of detention must be approved by the government and the same cannot be described by the District Magistrate while passing a detention order and accordingly sustained the detention order.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner has filed the present Writ petition to seek the quashing of the detention order passed by the Respondent on the ground that the order was passed in a mechanical manner and without any application of mind.
The case of the Petitioner was that the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 under which an appeal was filed by the Petitioner. Subsequently, a bail application was filed which got rejected by the Court. Thereafter, special leave to appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Petitioner was released on bail.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the Petitioner was implicated in 9 false cases only to be detained in the lockup. It was contended that the detention order was passed mechanically as it was not taken into consideration that the Petitioner stood acquitted and was in judicial lockup from 2009 to 2022. The rest of the FIRs registered against the Petitioner were false. It was contended that the Petitioner was not supplied the grounds, copies of the FIR, seizure memos, challans, or any other material based on which criminal cases were registered against the Petitioner and therefore, the Petitioner could not make effective representation to the Government. It was further argued that the detention order violated constitutional and procedural safeguards.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that the Petitioner is a dreaded and habitual criminal and hence is a threat to the public order, peace, and stability in the society. Since ordinary laws were inadequate to deter the Petitioner, the only recourse was to invoke the provisions of the Public Safety Act for detaining the Petitioner. It was argued that the detention order, grounds of detention, and all other material were explained to the Petitioner in a language that he fully understood. It was further argued that the Petitioner was even informed about his representation rights, but he failed to avail the remedy.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the right of personal liberty is a transcendental, inalienable, and most precious right which is available to a person independent of the Constitution. Further, explaining the object of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, it was noted that Article 22 aims to save the society from activities that are likely to deprive many people of their right to life and personal liberty as it leaves room for the detention of a person without any formal charge or trial. In a nutshell, Article 22 leaves scope for the enactment of preventive detention laws. The interest of the larger public outweighs the liberty of an individual. Further, the Bench noted that the goal of preventive detention is not to punish a person but only to prevent him from committing injurious activities.
In the present case, it was observed that the Petitioner was informed about the materials in a language that he understood and was also informed about his right to make an effective representation. The fault if any in not making a representation is only attributable to the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner remained uncontrolled as there were numerous FIRs registered against him for heinous offences.
It was also opined by the High Court that if a detention order is based on multiple grounds independent of each other, then the detention order will survive even if one of the grounds is not legally sustainable.
The High Court expounded that individual liberty despite being the most valuable and cherished right can be curtailed in certain circumstances as envisaged in the Constitution and one such circumstance is the interest of the larger society.
Lastly, the Bench noted that the period of detention must be approved by the Government and the same cannot be described by the District Magistrate while passing a detention order.
The decision of the Court:
Therefore, based on the reasons, the petition was dismissed, and the detention order was accordingly, sustained.
Case Title: Royal Singh v. UT of J&K & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Case No.: WP(Crl) No. 7/2022
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. KS Johal, Mr. Supreet Singh Johal, Mr. DS Saini
Advocate for Respondent: Dy. AG Mr. Pawan Dev Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
