J&K High Court Orders Immediate Release in Detention Case, Finds Grounds “Vague and Lacking Material Particulars”: “Subjective Satisfaction Has Become a Casualty”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has quashed the preventive detention order issued against the petitioner detained under the J&K Public Safety Act, finding that the grounds of detention were lacking in material particulars, thereby infringing the petitioner’s constitutional rights. A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar recorded that “the allegations made in the grounds of detention, particularly those relating to his recent activities, are vague and ambiguous” and added that “the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority, in these circumstances, has become a casualty.”
The petitioner challenged order No. DMS/PSA/16/2024 dated 10.07.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, detaining him under Section 8(4) of the J&K Public Safety Act to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.
The petitioner contended that there had been non-application of mind by the detaining authority in issuing the detention order, citing that the grounds of detention were a replica of the police dossier. It was further submitted that a previous detention order from 2019 had been revoked and no fresh activities were attributed to the petitioner thereafter. The petitioner described the grounds of detention, including the alleged association with APHC(M) and activities dating back to 1999, 2008, and 2010, as unfounded.
The petitioner asserted that he had served as an elected Municipal Councillor and as a Government Advocate from 1987 to 1989, maintaining a record as a law-abiding citizen. He submitted that he had condemned terrorism and extremism throughout his life through lectures and speeches. In his capacity as acting Chairman of the High Court Bar Association, the petitioner stated that he had convened a general body meeting to amend the Association’s constitution and bring it in conformity with the Advocates Act.
The petitioner claimed that there were no specific recent activities cited in the grounds of detention that could have influenced the detaining authority to pass the impugned order. It was also submitted that he had opposed the ideology of Advocate Mr. Mian Abdul Qayoom and had contested elections against him, while consistently speaking against the policies of separatists. The petitioner further submitted that he had received death threats for publicly denouncing Hurriyat leaders.
It was contended that there were no compelling reasons for passing the detention order and that it was based on conjecture. The petitioner submitted that he was not informed about the period within which to make a representation against the detention order and argued that the grounds were vague and lacked sufficient details, preventing him from making an effective representation. It was also claimed that no FIR had been registered against him and that he had never been involved in anti-national activities.
The petitioner further submitted that there had been a violation of constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, alleging that not all the material relied upon to justify his detention had been supplied to him.
The respondents, through the District Magistrate, Srinagar, filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner was affiliated with APHC(M), an organization alleged to propagate anti-national sentiments and secessionist ideologies. It was submitted that the petitioner held a prominent position within the organization as its legal advisor and had organized anti-national seminars, rallies, and programs to glorify secessionism.
The respondents alleged that the petitioner was working to revive the High Court Bar Association to provide a platform to terrorists and secessionists. It was stated that under the influence of Advocate Mr. Mian Abdul Qayoom, the petitioner was supporting the Bar Association’s constitution that purportedly aided terrorist movements.
Further, it was submitted that in 1999, the petitioner and Mr. Mian Abdul Qayoom led the unification of 11 secessionist parties under the Tehreek-i-Hurriyat Kashmir banner, an organization later declared unlawful by the Government of India. The petitioner was also accused of involvement in the 2008 Amarnath land row agitation and the 2010 agitation, both resulting in widespread violence.
The respondents alleged that the petitioner organized seminars within the Saddar Court premises in Srinagar, attended by secessionist leaders including Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Mohammad Yaseen Malik, Ghulam Nabi Sumji, and Mushtaq-ul-Islam. They further submitted that the petitioner was detained under the Public Safety Act in 2019 following the abrogation of Article 370 and, after release, continued glorifying secessionism and organized secret meetings with like-minded members of the Bar Association.
It was also alleged that the petitioner visited jails outside J&K to meet secessionists and terrorists, misused the Bar Association’s platform to spread separatist ideas, and posed a direct threat to the State’s security as per police inputs.
The respondents submitted that the detaining authority had examined the police dossier and other materials, reaching subjective satisfaction that the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to the State’s security. It was submitted that all constitutional safeguards had been followed and that the grounds of detention were “precise, proximate, pertinent and relevant.”
The Court considered whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority could be interfered with. The judgment stated that “grounds of detention must be precise, unambiguous containing specific and precise particulars so that a detenue is able to furnish an effective and precise response to the allegations.”
Justice Dhar, referring to the Supreme Court decision in State of Bombay vs. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya, recorded that “if, on reading the ground furnished, it is capable of being intelligently understood and is sufficiently definite to furnish materials to enable the detained person to make a representation against the order of detention, it cannot be called vague.”
The Court reviewed the petitioner’s past conduct cited in the detention order, including his association with APHC(M), his role in the High Court Bar Association, the 2008 and 2010 agitations, and seminars involving secessionist leaders. Justice Dhar recorded that these were “specific in nature [and] relate to the past conduct of the petitioner.”
The Court noted that the detaining authority’s focus on the petitioner’s recent activities lacked adequate detail. It recorded that “the detaining authority has not identified the person with whom the petitioner has recently held secret meetings nor has it identified the persons who are likeminded members of the High Court Bar Association.” The judgment further observed that “the particulars of the offensive activities including the places and the dates on which the petitioner has indulged in such activities are also missing.”
The Court found that the allegations lacked material particulars and stated that “on the basis of such allegations, it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective and suitable representation.” It recorded that this omission “has resulted in violating of his Constitutional right to make an effective representation against the order of detention.”
Justice Dhar found that “the manner in which the grounds of detention have been formulated by the detaining authority clearly reflects non-application of mind on its part.” The Court also stated that “the allegations made in the grounds of detention, particularly those relating to his recent activities, are vague, ambiguous, uncertain and lacking in material particulars.”
The Court distinguished the present case from Mian Abdul Qayoom vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors., observing that in that case, the detaining authority relied on multiple intelligence reports spanning several years, which was not the case here. Justice Dhar recorded that “the detention record produced before this Court does not contain any intelligence report that would go on to show that the petitioner has continued to hold the same ideology for which he was detained in the year 2019.”
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution had been infringed and found the detention order unsustainable. The Court stated, “the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Davendra N. Goburdhan, Sr. Advocate, M/S Umair Ronga, , Tuba Manzoor & Ms. Sabiya Shabir, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG, Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA & Ms. Maha Majeed, Advocate
Case Title: Nazir Ahmad Ronga vs. UT of J&K & Ors.
Case Number: HCP No. 267/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
[Read/Download order]
