Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed two preventive detention orders passed against a Jammu resident under the Public Safety Act (PSA), holding that detaining authorities cannot act as “rubber stamps” by mechanically reproducing dossiers submitted by sponsoring agencies without independent application of mind.
Observing that such a “copy-paste” approach infringes personal liberty, the court said preventive detention, being an extraordinary measure, cannot be invoked to punish a citizen on unsubstantiated claims.
The single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri said that while preventive detention is intended to prevent future crimes, detention orders based merely on allegations reproduced from sponsoring authorities without independent evaluation are unsustainable in law.
“Preventive detention is a drastic precautionary measure intended to intercept future crimes, but it cannot be invoked to punish a citizen for unsubstantiated claims. Therefore, detention orders which merely ‘copy-paste’ the dossiers of sponsoring authorities, without independent evaluation of the detaining authorities, are illegal,” the court, according to Kashmir dot Com, observed in its judgment.
The case arose from a petition filed by Talib Hussain, a 39-year-old resident of Chatta Sunjwan in Jammu district. The District Magistrate, Jammu, had issued two detention orders bearing the same number (27 of 2024) and date (June 7, 2024), invoking Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(a-1) of the J&K Public Safety Act.
The detention was based on a dossier submitted by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Jammu, alleging that Hussain was a habitual land grabber who had encroached upon forest land in the Bahu Forest Range. The dossier also alleged that he was involved in illegal land levelling, mining activities and carving out residential plots on forest land.
Examining the record, the court found that one of the detention orders had been issued under Section 8(1)(a-1) of the PSA, a provision dealing with timber or liquor smuggling and related activities. However, the allegations against Hussain did not relate to timber or liquor smuggling.
The court observed that no ground was made out for invoking Section 8(1)(a-1), noting that the allegations primarily referred to encroachment of forest land and related activities.
The court also found that two of the encroachment instances cited in the dossier, relating to seven kanals and 150 kanals of forest land, were attributed to Hussain’s father, Sain Ditta. It observed that the petitioner appeared to have been detained under the PSA for activities allegedly committed by his father, indicating non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
The UT administration argued that the reference to Section 8(1)(a-1) was a clerical error and that the detention was, in substance, intended to be under Section 8(1)(a) of the PSA.
The court, however, found that the detention record itself reflected uncertainty regarding the provision under which the petitioner was sought to be detained. Justice Rakesh Sekhri observed that the detaining authority appeared “oblivious to decide as to under which provision” the petitioner was to be detained.
In a significant observation on preventive detention, the court noted that grounds of detention in habeas corpus matters often contain generic allegations reproduced from sponsoring authority dossiers without independent application of mind.
“It is a matter of common experience that grounds of detention furnished to a detenue in Habeas Corpus matters would often contain generic allegations forming part of the dossier submitted by the sponsoring authority, without any independent application of mind. Such a ‘copy-paste’ culture on the part of detaining authorities would fundamentally infringe upon fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed under the Constitution. Personal liberty of a person cannot be trifled in such a cavalier fashion,” the court said.
The bench added that detaining authorities are expected to act neutrally between the State and the individual liberty of a citizen and “cannot afford to act as a rubber stamp of sponsoring authorities”.
The administration had also opposed the petition on the ground that it was filed at the pre-execution stage, before the detention orders had been executed.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Additional Secretary to the Government of India v. Alka Subash Gadia, the High Court held that courts can interfere at the pre-execution stage in exceptional cases, including where detention orders are passed for a wrong purpose or on vague, extraneous or irrelevant grounds.
Applying those principles, the court held that the case fell within the exceptions recognised by the Supreme Court, observing that the detention orders had been passed “for a wrong purpose, against a wrong person and on absolutely vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds”.
Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed both detention orders. However, the court clarified that the authorities would remain free to pursue appropriate civil and criminal remedies in relation to the allegations concerning encroachment of forest land, observing that ordinary legal remedies remained available under the law. (KDC)
