Detention Orders With Irrelevant Grounds Violate Constitutional Rights, Grants Detenu Right To Seek Relief From Court: J&K High Court

Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul explained that such inclusions infringe upon two crucial rights: firstly, the inclusion of irrelevant or non-existent grounds infringes upon the primary right, and secondly, incorporating obscure or vague grounds among clear ones infringes upon the secondary right.

"The inclusion of an irrelevant or non-existent ground, among other relevant grounds, is an infringement of the first of the rights and the inclusion of an obscure or vague ground, among other clear and definite grounds, is an infringement of the second of the rights. In either case there is an invasion of the constitutional rights of the detenu entitling him to approach the Court for relief."

The petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the quashing of the detention order issued against Fayaz Ahmad Wani. The petitioner contested the order passed by the District Magistrate, Budgam, on the grounds that Wani's activities posed a threat to the security of the Union Territory.

The petitioner argued that the grounds of detention are vague, and indefinite, and do not specify particular dates or details of the alleged prejudicial activities, making it impossible for the detenu to make an effective representation.

The respondents argued that the detaining authority had valid reasons for the preventive detention, emphasizing the necessity to prevent actions that could be prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory. They also claimed that all relevant material relied upon by the detaining authority was provided to the detenu.

Upon careful examination, Justice Koul noted that the grounds of detention were indeed vague and ambiguous, lacking specific dates or clear-cut prejudicial activities associated with the detenu.

Emphasising that preventive detention being largely precautionary and based on suspicion, necessitates a meticulous application of mind by the detaining authority, the bench added,

"These are not the matters susceptible of objective determination, and they could not have been intended to be judged by objective standards. They are essentially the matters which have to be administratively determined for the purpose of taking administrative action. Their determination is, therefore, deliberately and advisedly left by the Legislature to the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority which, by reason of its special position, experience and expertise, would be best suited to decide them".

Prescribing the reasons as to why the inclusion of even a simple irrelevant or obscure ground, among several relevant and clear grounds, is an invasion of the detenu’s constitutional right, the bench explained,

"The reason why the inclusion of even a simple irrelevant or obscure ground, among several relevant and clear grounds, is an invasion of the detenu’s constitutional right is that the Court is precluded from adjudicating upon the sufficiency of the grounds, and it cannot substitute its objective decision for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Even if one of the grounds or reasons, which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, is non-existent or misconceived or irrelevant, the order of detention would be invalid".

Justice Koul also pointed out that the grounds of detention and the dossier submitted by the police contained almost identical language, indicating a lack of application of mind by the detaining authority.

As such, the bench quashed the Detention Order and ordered the release of the detenu provided he is not required in any other case.

Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Wani Vs Union Territory of J&K and ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 272

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. Mansoor Ah Mir, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Fameem Ahmad Shah, GA

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment