J&K High Court Upholds Detention Under Public Safety Act | Religious Unrest and Threat to Communal Harmony Justify Preventive Action
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of an individual under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The Court held that the detention order had been validly issued based on sufficient material, and that procedural and constitutional safeguards had been complied with. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish any grounds that would warrant quashing the detention, and accordingly directed dismissal of the petition and return of the detention record.
The petitioner, the wife of the detenu, challenged Detention Order No. 2nd/DM/K/PSA of 2024 dated 27.07.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, Kishtwar (Respondent No. 2). The detenu was alleged to have been involved in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and his detention was sought to prevent recurrence of such conduct.
The petitioner contended that there was no relevant material to justify the detaining authority’s satisfaction that the detenu posed a threat to public order. She asserted that the detention was passed without application of mind and that the detenu was not supplied with the complete record, particularly sixteen daily diary reports referenced in the grounds of detention. It was further claimed that the detaining authority had failed to provide reasons for rejecting the detenu’s representation, which allegedly violated procedural requirements.
In reply, the detaining authority submitted that the detenu had previously been booked under FIR No. 182/2024 for offences under Sections 196 and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Despite being granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishtwar, on 18.07.2024, the detenu continued engaging in activities that incited communal disharmony, as substantiated by multiple daily diary reports submitted by the sponsoring police agency.
The detaining authority stated that the detenu had slaughtered a bovine animal, and meat recovered from his possession gave rise to unrest among members of a particular religious community. The incident led to public protests and demonstrations across Kishtwar district. In view of these developments, the authority concluded that preventive detention was necessary to maintain communal harmony and public order.
The respondents stated that all procedural requirements were fulfilled during the execution of the detention order. They submitted that the detenu had been provided with the full dossier, including the grounds of detention, copy of the FIR, and the sixteen daily diary reports. The receipt of this dossier by the detenu was not disputed. To support these submissions, the detention record was produced before the Court.
Justice Sanjay Dhar recorded that the principal contention raised by the detenu’s counsel was that the full material relied upon in the grounds of detention—specifically the sixteen daily diary reports—was not supplied to the detenu. The Court analysed this assertion with reference to the documents produced.
“A perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that the detaining authority, while formulating the grounds of detention, has placed reliance upon FIR No. 182/2024, in which the detenu was granted bail by the Court of learned CJM, Kishtwar, on 18.07.2024.” The Court noted that the FIR involved allegations of slaughtering a bovine animal, resulting in hurt religious sentiments and subsequent unrest.
The judgment further stated: “It also appears from a perusal of the grounds of detention that after grant of bail to the detenu, several protests and demonstrations were held by the members of a particular community within the territorial limits of different Police Stations and Police Posts across Kishtwar.” The Court recorded that unrest and communal disharmony had arisen, and that the detaining authority relied on the sixteen diary reports while framing the grounds of detention.
Examining the record, the Court stated: “The gist of the incidents, as mentioned in the dossier of detention, is comprehensive enough to cover the essential aspects of the daily diary reports.” Referring to the physical dossier, the Court observed: “The dossier of detention runs into only 07 leaves, but (16) diary reports and copy of FIR No. 182/2024 of Police Station, Kishtwar form a part of the said report.”
The Court recorded: “Since the detenu has received a dossier consisting of (35) pages, it can, therefore, be safely inferred that the detenu has received not only copy of the dossier, but he has also received the copies of documents accompanying the dossier viz copy of the FIR and the copies of 16 daily diary reports.” In light of these findings, it concluded: “The contention of the detenu in this regard is, therefore, without any merit.”
Turning to the petitioner’s argument that the detention was unjustified because the detenu was already booked in a criminal case, the Court examined whether there were compelling reasons for preventive detention. It stated: “The detaining authority has clearly indicated in the grounds of detention that, after grant of bail in favour of the detenu, several demonstrations and protests were held across District Kishtwar, as due to the alleged act of the detenu, religious sentiments of a particular community were hurt.”
The judgment observed: “It has been recorded by the detaining authority that this situation created a threat to public order, thereby compelling it to pass the impugned order of detention.” The Court further held: “It would not be open to this Court to undertake a judicial review of the opinion framed by the detaining authority, particularly when it is based upon the material placed before it by the sponsoring agency.”
Addressing the argument regarding rejection of representation without reasons, the Court stated: “It is to be noted that the requirement of law is that a detenu has to be informed about the result of his representation, but, there is no requirement in law to furnish reasons regarding the decision of the competent authority with respect to rejection or acceptance of such representation.”
The Court concluded that it found no merit in the petition and accordingly dismissed it. It further directed that the detention record be returned to the concerned authority without delay.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Asheesh Singh Kotwal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, Government Advocate
Case Title: Sher Mohd v. Union Territory of J&K and Others
Case Number: HCP No. 136/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
[Read/Download order]
