Dossier Seeking Preventive Detention By 'Name-Calling' Without Supporting Facts Leads To Fragile Detention Order Which Can Be Quashed: J&K High Court

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti emphasized,

“A dossier by the sponsoring authority for seeking preventive detention of a person if obtaining in the form of just name-calling against a given person without bearing supporting factual inputs will only lead to a detention order, if passed by the detention authority, against a person a very fragile detention order amenable to suffer quashment”.

Background:

Jehangir Ahmad Mir was detained in June 2022 by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, citing that his activities were prejudicial to maintaining "security of the state." The order was based on a dossier prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Srinagar, which alleged that Mir had links with militant outfits and intended to work as an overground worker.

Seeking his liberty Mir through his father challenged his detention through a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

Observations Of The Court:

Justice Bharti while examining the case, referred to several precedents like Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar (1968) and Mishri Lal Jain v. District Magistrate (1971) set by the Supreme Court of India on preventive detention and emphasized the importance of grounds of detention being specific and based on facts.

Underscoring the implications of non-objective and vague grounds of detention on the sustainability of a detention order Justice Bharti reasoned,

“If a non-objective situation presented by the law and enforcement authority seeking an identified person desired to be detained by preventive detention mode leads to the detention authority passing a preventive detention order against a given person, then the subjective satisfaction at the end of the preventive detention making/ordering authority is nothing but the supplementing of surmises”.

Upon closely scrutinising the grounds of detention in the instant case the court found them to be lacking in factual details. The court noted that the order merely mentioned that Mir was subjected to proceedings under Section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in June 2022, without providing any further context.

Accordingly, the court pointed out that such a vague reference did not provide Mir with a clear understanding of the accusations against him, hindering his ability to make a proper representation against the detention.

Justice Bharti further went on to state that preventive detention jurisdiction by every stretch of contemplation is fact/s attentive and sensitive and emphasized that a detention order based on "fact-less statements" from the sponsoring authority is vulnerable to challenge.

“Preventive detention jurisdiction by every stretch of contemplation is fact/s attentive and sensitive. A preventive detention gets vitiated in a case submitted by the sponsoring authority for seeking a preventive detention of a person before preventive detention making/ordering authority, where the facts are lacking, deficient, diversionary or illusionary. Facts for sure, make a statement but the converse is not true that every statement can make facts”, the bench recorded.

Terming habeas corpus as a legal panacea that has always remained a judge guarded and guided wherever and in whatever legal system it continues to be in service the bench added is for this reason that writ of habeas corpus was celebrated in its description by Charlas James Fox in 1977 as “palladium of the liberties of the subject.”

Drawing reference to the significance of habeas corpus as a fundamental right, the court emphasized the need for swift disposal of such petitions. It added,

“When a person‟s personal liberty is illegally infringed/wronged by or under the aegis of the State, time becomes the essence of justice as to how soon the said personal liberty deprived person gets it restored to him or her so as to ensure minimization of the deleterious effects of the injury inflicted qua the subject and the society”.

In conclusion, the court quashed the detention order against Jehangir Ahmad Mir, terming it "seriously afflicted with fallacy without any factual basis." The court directed Mir's immediate release and ordered the District Magistrate, Srinagar, to ensure his safe release from the jail where he is currently lodged.

Case Title: Jehangir Ahmad Mir Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 37

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. A. H. Naik, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Farhat Zia, Adv.

Counsel For Respondents: Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment