Jammu & Kashmir High Court Imposes 10K Costs On District Magistrate For 'Unjustifiable' Preventive Detention Order

The court described the detention order as based on the “twisted reasoning and thought process of the District Magistrate” which “deserves to be deprecated strongly.” The Court made this observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner through his wife, challenging a detention order issued under the PSA.

The petitioner had been detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, based on four FIRs, with offences ranging from property trespass to forgery and attempted murder. The court found that these FIRs, some dating back over a decade, did not substantiate claims that the petitioner posed a significant threat to public safety or security of the state.

Justice Atul Sreedharan, while adjudicating the matter, stated, "The crimes committed by the subject are grave threats to the security of the State as to how the District Magistrate comes to this fanciful and puerile finding is a mystery. No justification for holding so has been given."

The District Magistrate, in the preventive detention order, had stated that “maintenance of the public order always occurs in juxtapose with public safety” and that “the crime committed by the subject are grave threat to the security of the State”. However, the court found this reasoning unsupported by the evidence provided.

The court on examining the grounds of detention found that the cases cited were “largely interpersonal” and did not substantiate the claim that the petitioner posed a significant threat to public safety or state security.

Of the four FIRs, the first was registered in 2012 and was described by the court as stale and triable by a Magistrate. The court noted, “Ex facie, the case is stale which has been considered 12 years after its registration for passing an order in the year 2024.”

The second FIR from 2019 was also dismissed as stale and triable by the Court of Sessions. The court remarked that these cases did not pose a direct threat to public safety or state security.

The court noted that while the third FIR, registered in 2021, involved charges that were largely interpersonal, it recognized the interest of society due to the inclusion of Section 307 IPC, which pertains to attempted murder. However, it was highlighted by the counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet for this case was filed only after the passing of the detention order against the petitioner.

The fourth FIR, registered in 2023 and involving forgery-related offences, was cited as the immediate cause for the preventive detention. However, Justice Sreedharan noted that these offences "do not even by a wrong shot involve the security of the State or public order."

Justice Sreedharan criticized the preventive detention order, stating, "It is vague and the language used is intended to confuse rather than convince and it reflects an anxiety on the part of the District Magistrate to justify the unjustifiable."

The Counsel for the Union Territory, Additional Advocate General Rajesh Thapa, argued that the petitioner had a long criminal history. However, the court expressed that the counsel had failed to prove the detaining authority adequately applied its mind, as there was no evidence showing if the District Magistrate had considered whether the petitioner was likely to receive bail or had already been granted bail.

The court ordered the immediate release of the petitioner and imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the District Magistrate Jammu personally, directing the payment to be made within two weeks.

Case Title: Surjeet Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 191

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment