Srinagar: Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Tuesday said that due “callous approach” of the detaining authorities, the whole purpose of the preventive laws is getting defeated in J&K.
“We are at pains to observe that in routine this Court comes across the cases in which the detention orders issued on the grounds of threat to the security and integrity of State are getting quashed due to non adherence to technical requirements,” said a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Rajnesh Oswal while allowing an appeal against court’s single bench order by virtue of which PSA detention of a man– Sartaj Ahmad Allie—from Kulgam.
“In many petitions the grounds taken are non-furnishing of material relied upon by the detaining Authority to the detenue; not informing the detenue about his right to make representation; not informing the detenue about the grounds of detention in the language that he understands etc. The law on which is well settled,” the court said as per Global News Service Correspondent, adding, “Due to callous approach of the detaining Authorities in passing such orders, the whole purpose of the Preventive laws is getting defeated.”
The court said that either the detaining authorities are not aware about the requirements of law or they are dealing the issues of preventive detention very “casually”.
“Be that as it may, time has come when the detaining Authorities must be imparted proper training about the requirements of law in passing the detention order so as to ensure that such orders are not set aside on technical grounds,” the court said as per GNS and asked Registrar Judicial to send copies of the judgment to the Chief Secretary, Commissioner Secretary, Department of Home, and Law Secretary, for compliance through email. “It is made clear that any such slackness in future may invite imposition of personal cost on the officer concerned,” the court said.
Meanwhile allowing the petition by Sartaj who was booked under PSA on 28 November 2018, the court ordered that he be released forthwith provided he is not detained in any other matter including FIR Nos. 260/2017 and 333/2017.
” The Learned AAG (additional advocate general) has not been able to bring to our notice any such satisfaction recorded by the detaining Authority while passing the detention order. The Single Judge though has discussed about the appellant (Sartja) being in custody at the time of passing of detention order but has not dealt this issue in right perspective,” the court said, adding, “On this ground only the appeal deserves to be allowed.”
