Jammu and Kashmir High Court Orders Release of Youth Detained Under Public Safety Act

Court Critiques Administration's Handling of Detention

In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ordered the release of a young man who had been detained for nearly two years under the Public Safety Act (PSA). The court criticized the administration's approach, stating that the manner in which the PSA was enforced in this case reflected a level of negligence and carelessness that surpasses even the issuance of routine traffic citations. Justice Rahul Bharti annulled the detention order issued on April 20, 2024, directing the release of 28-year-old Shabir Ahmed Dar. The court clarified that the actions taken against Dar, a resident of Kokernag in Anantnag district, were illegal from the outset.

Concerns Over Administrative Accountability

The court's recent decision highlighted that the application of the PSA in this instance was so lacking in seriousness that it would not even be acceptable in the context of a regular traffic violation. This remark raises serious questions about the accountability and discretion exercised by administrative officials.

Political Leaders Raise Concerns Over PSA Misuse

Numerous prominent politicians from Jammu and Kashmir have long voiced concerns regarding the alleged misuse of the Public Safety Act. Former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti and Peoples Conference leader Sajad Lone have accused authorities of unlawfully detaining hundreds of individuals under this law and have called for their release.

Details of Shabir Ahmed Dar's Case

In the case of Shabir Ahmed Dar, the Senior Superintendent of Police from Anantnag submitted a report to the District Magistrate on April 17, 2024, recommending Dar's detention under the PSA. The report claimed that his activities posed a threat to the security of Jammu and Kashmir. Twelve days later, the District Magistrate ordered Dar's detention in a jail in Jammu.

Court Questions the Use of Discretion

The PSA's Section 8 grants the District Magistrate the authority to detain any individual based on state security concerns. However, the court found that the District Magistrate did not exercise independent discretion in this case. The ruling indicated that the detention order was based solely on a two-page police report and an FIR filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in July 2022.

Concerns Over Evidence and Legal Process

The grounds for the detention order included Dar's involvement in a local madrasa and allegations of suspicious activities on social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, and Snapchat. However, the court raised serious objections, noting that the FIR referenced did not name Dar as an accused nor was he a subject of any ongoing trial.

Judicial Review of Preventive Detention

In May 2024, Shabir Ahmed Dar approached the High Court to challenge his detention. During the proceedings, Justice Rahul Bharti remarked that the detention order was fundamentally based on the assertions of the Senior Superintendent of Police, without any independent consideration by the District Magistrate. The court emphasized that detaining an individual based on vague and general references contradicts the fundamental spirit of the law.

Implications of the Court's Ruling

The court explicitly stated that the petitioner was held in preventive custody solely based on a vague reference from the Senior Superintendent of Police and a similarly superficial consideration by the District Magistrate. Such actions not only violate the principles of the rule of law but also pose a serious threat to civil liberties.

A Landmark Decision on Preventive Detention

This ruling is being viewed as a significant precedent in cases of detention under the Public Safety Act. The court has conveyed that the use of stringent provisions like preventive detention must be approached with utmost caution, solid evidence, and independent discretion. This order serves as a clear warning to administrative officials that the integrity and fairness of the process must not be compromised when adhering to legal provisions.