Srinagar: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the preventive detention of Sakib Akbar Waza of Tral, Pulwama, under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, holding that the detention order was based on cogent and relevant material and that all constitutional and statutory safeguards were duly followed.
Dismissing the habeas corpus petition, Justice Shahzad Azeem observed that the detention record established that the detenu was supplied all relied-upon documents, including translated copies in Kashmiri/Urdu, enabling him to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court found no procedural infirmity in the execution of the detention order or the proceedings before the Advisory Board.
Rejecting the contention that ordinary criminal law was sufficient, the Court relied on Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 198, reiterating that preventive detention is a “precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation” and is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The Court noted that preventive detention may validly coexist with or follow criminal prosecution, discharge or even acquittal.
The Court also referred to Sasti alias Satish Chowdhary v. State of West Bengal, (1972) 3 SCC 826, holding that the mere fact that an act constitutes a criminal offence does not preclude the detaining authority from invoking preventive detention if the statutory requirements are satisfied.
Relying on Mohd. Salim Khan v. Shri C.C. Bose, AIR 1972 SC 1670, the Court further observed that discharge or bail in a criminal case does not by itself render a preventive detention order invalid or without basis.
Justice Azeem held that the detaining authority had arrived at its subjective satisfaction on specific, proximate and relevant material showing a live link between the detenu’s alleged activities and the need to prevent acts prejudicial to the security of the State.
Emphasising the limited scope of judicial review, the Court observed that constitutional courts do not sit as appellate authorities over preventive detention orders and cannot substitute their own opinion once the order is founded on relevant material and procedural safeguards have been complied with.
Finding no violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the detention order.
Discover more from Bench&Law
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
