Srinagar, October 21: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has raised serious concerns over the alleged mechanical exercise of preventive detention powers, stressing that such orders must strictly comply with constitutional safeguards and protect personal liberty.A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal made the observations while hearing a plea filed by Zubair Amin Bangroo challenging a preventive detention order issued by the District Magistrate Srinagar.The court observed that the detention grounds alleged that the detainee had developed close links with terrorist elements, provided logistical and moral support to them, and permitted his residence and other locations to be used as hideouts. However, it noted that the grounds prima facie lacked specific material particulars identifying the persons, incidents, locations and alleged acts relied upon by the detaining authority.The bench emphasised that the seriousness of allegations cannot replace the requirement for relevant evidence and the independent application of mind by the authority passing a detention order.The court also flagged the use of the expression “aforementioned terrorists” in the detention grounds despite no earlier identification of any terrorist. It observed that this inconsistency raised concerns that portions of the order may have been mechanically reproduced from the police dossier without proper independent assessment.The bench referred to another recent detention matter in which the order had prima facie appeared to reproduce the police dossier. The similarity, it observed, raised questions about whether preventive detention in Jammu and Kashmir was being exercised through independent evaluation or by mechanically repeating police assertions.Reiterating the importance of Article 21 and constitutional protections for personal liberty, the court stressed that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure that deprives a person of liberty without a regular criminal trial. Constitutional safeguards, it said, cannot be treated as empty formalities.The bench further observed that the more extraordinary the power exercised by the State, the greater its obligation to ensure that the action remains within constitutional limits. Even serious allegations, it added, cannot dilute the statutory and constitutional requirements governing detention.The court clarified that the absence of a criminal case alone does not determine the validity of a preventive detention order. However, the authority must demonstrate through the material considered and the grounds recorded that all legal requirements were independently and lawfully satisfied.Taking note of the concerns surrounding the detention order, the High Court directed Deputy Commissioner Srinagar to appear personally on October 22 with the complete original record, including the police dossier, supporting material and records reflecting the authority’s consideration and satisfaction.The officer has been directed to explain why he allegedly passed the detention order “recklessly and mechanically” without due application of mind.The matter places renewed focus on preventive detention safeguards, judicial scrutiny and the protection of personal liberty in Jammu and Kashmir.
Leave a Reply