Jammu & Kashmir High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Of Alleged Leader Of Banned Organization Jamat-e-Islami

“Having glance of the grounds of detention, it is clear that right from the college life the detenue was involved in anti-national activities. His affiliation with banned organization Jamat-e-Islami and holding the different positions in the said organization with an aim and purpose to liberate the State of J&K from India and annex it with Pakistan. His inclination towards secessionist elements gave him a place in Jamat-e- Islami which is a banned organization, of which he was an active member”, Justice M A Chowdhary observed.

In a petition filed by Ganie's wife, it was contended that the grounds of detention were vague and that he was not provided with the material or documents relied upon by the detaining authority. The petitioner further argued that the detaining authority's reliance on stale grounds rendered the order unsustainable.

The respondents vehemently resisted the petition, arguing that preventive detention under the Public Safety Act aims to prevent individuals from engaging in anti-national or anti-social activities that could endanger public order. The respondent contended that there was substantial evidence against the detenue, indicating his involvement in activities prejudicial to public order, including supporting and motivating terrorists.

After hearing the arguments of both parties and perusing the detention dossier, the court noted that the individual in question holds a Ph.D. degree from Kashmir University and has been associated with Jammat-e-Islami since college days. Allegedly, the detenue rose to the position of "Ameer" of Jamat-e-Islami J&K in 2018 and has actively supported and motivated terrorists and has been working towards the secession of Jammu and Kashmir from India, aiming for its incorporation into Pakistan.

Delving into the merits of the case the bench acknowledged that the right to personal liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution but added that preventive detention is a measure taken to prevent individuals from executing plans that could jeopardize public safety and that the Constitution itself allows for the enactment of preventive detention laws.

The court observed that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is subjective and based on the material available and the court should not sit in judgment over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority unless there is evidence of mala fides.

Based on these considerations the court upheld the preventive detention order, stating that the detenue's activities were highly prejudicial and detrimental to public order.

Case Title: Abdul Hameed Ganie @ Dr.Hameed Fayaz vs. State of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 212

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment