Cannot Utilise Previously Invalidated Grounds To Detain Individual For Issuance Of Fresh Detention Order: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that authorities cannot utilize grounds previously invalidated to detain an individual under preventive detention statutes.A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar emphasized the inherent challenge of segregating the grounds of a quashed detention order from fresh grounds without delving into the subjective considerations of the...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that authorities cannot utilize grounds previously invalidated to detain an individual under preventive detention statutes.
A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar emphasized the inherent challenge of segregating the grounds of a quashed detention order from fresh grounds without delving into the subjective considerations of the Detaining Authority.
“..it would not be possible for this Court to segregate the grounds of detention of the quashed detention order and the fresh grounds of detention without getting into the mind of the Detaining Authority. In such situation, the court is left with no option but to presume that what persuaded the Detaining Authority to draw subjective satisfaction with respect to detention of the detenue is the cumulative consideration of all grounds old as well as fresh”, the court reasoned.
These observations came in a case around Tajinder Singh alias Jinda, a resident of Jammu, alleged to be a notorious criminal facing multiple FIRs. He was previously detained in 2016 and 2017 under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) based on these FIRs. However, both detention orders were challenged and quashed by the High Court.
In 2023, Singh was again detained under the PSA with fresh grounds, including two new FIRs registered against him. The authorities claimed these new FIRs justified Singh's detention to maintain public order.
Singh's lawyers argued that the detention order was flawed on two counts. First, the authorities relied on previously quashed grounds, which the court had already deemed insufficient for detention. Second, the authorities failed to consider Singh's representation against the detention order within a reasonable time, violating his fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Justice Kumar, in his judgment, acknowledged the two new FIRs but noted the court's inability to determine if the authorities based their decision solely on these new grounds. The bench wondered,
“From a reading of the grounds of detention, it is not discernible as to whether two subsequent FIRs alone have persuaded the Detaining Authority to issue a fresh detention order against the petitioner or it is the cumulative consideration of all the FIRs including FIRs registered against the petitioner upto 2017, which has persuaded the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that allowing the petitioner to remain at large would be detrimental to the maintenance of public order”,
Since the authorities included the previously quashed grounds, the court presumed they relied on a "cumulative consideration of all grounds," rendering the detention order invalid.
Furthermore, the Court reiterated the importance of expeditiously considering representations made by detainees, citing Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others, 2021, and Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, 1970 which in the instant case had not been considered by the competent authority.
Based on these observations, the High Court quashed the detention order and directed Singh's immediate release.
Case Title: Tajinder Singh @ Jinda Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 68
Petitioner was Represented by Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG represented UT of J&k