The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, in its recent ruling, emphasized the significance of due process while quashing a public detention order under the Public Safety Act (PSA). The court criticized authorities for opting for preventive detention rather than pursuing bail challenges, underscoring the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures.

The court emphasized that if authorities have concerns about a released individual potentially returning to criminal activities, they should oppose their bail application or challenge any potential bail grant in higher courts. It stressed that preventive detention should not be hastily employed as a shocking reaction solely based on the possibility of bail.

Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul made these observations while presiding over a plea where the petitioner had contested a detention order issued under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act of 1978.

The central argument revolved around the vagueness and lack of specificity regarding the grounds of detention. It was contended that the detaining authority had not attributed any specific allegations against the detenu, resulting in an order that was cryptic and indefinite.

Additionally, the petitioner underscored the detention authority's failure to furnish relevant material, such as the dossier and copies of FIRs, which were relied upon to justify the detention. The petitioner argued that this omission impeded the detenu's ability to mount an effective defense against the detention order, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the Act.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, Justice Koul delved into the procedural lapses surrounding the detention. The court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases, stressing that such requirements must be diligently followed as they serve as the primary safeguards available to the detainee.

Justice Koul further emphasized that preventive detention orders should not be passed merely on the apprehension that the individual might secure bail, highlighting the need for authorities to challenge such bail orders in higher forums rather than resorting to invoking the Public Safety Act.

Significantly, the court scrutinized the temporal proximity between the alleged prejudicial activities and the issuance of the detention order. Finding a lack of a coherent explanation for the undue delay and a failure to establish a direct connection between the activities and the purpose of detention, the court deemed the detention order unsustainable. In light of these findings, the court quashed the detention order and directed the authorities to release the petitioner immediately, provided he is not required to be in any other lawful custody.

Case Title: Muyeeb Shafi Ganie Vs UT of J&K