In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, led by Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, quashed the preventive detention of Advocate Miyan Muzaffar under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) of 1978. The court criticized the detaining authority for relying on vague allegations and failing to apply its mind, reaffirming that preventive detention laws must adhere strictly to constitutional safeguards.
Case Background
The case involved the detention of 38-year-old Advocate Miyan Muzaffar, who was apprehended on the night of July 13-14, 2024, under a detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar. The detention was based on a dossier prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, alleging that Muzaffar’s activities were prejudicial to state security.
Muzaffar, detained at the District Jail, Kathua, filed a petition through his wife, challenging the detention. The petition highlighted procedural lapses, including the failure to provide critical materials to the detenue, such as the dossier, which hampered his ability to make an effective representation against the order.
Legal Issues
The court examined two fundamental legal questions:
1. Whether the detaining authority demonstrated subjective satisfaction in passing the detention order.
2. Whether the detenue was provided sufficient material to ensure his right to representation under the Constitution.
Key Observations of the Court
Justice Kazmi emphasized that preventive detention laws are extraordinary measures that must not replace regular legal processes. Highlighting the importance of constitutional safeguards, the court reiterated that detention orders must be founded on specific and substantive grounds.
The court noted:
– Vague and Unsupported Allegations: The grounds for detention lacked clarity and were based on Muzaffar’s professional associations rather than actionable evidence. For instance, allegations tied to his relationship with senior advocate Mian Abdul Qayoom did not demonstrate any unlawful activity.
– Non-Application of Mind: The detaining authority failed to show why ordinary legal provisions were inadequate to address Muzaffar’s alleged actions. The court observed that no direct or proximate link was established between his conduct and the need for detention.
– Violation of Procedural Safeguards: The court found that essential materials, including the police dossier, were not provided to Muzaffar or his family, making his right to representation illusory.
Quoting a Supreme Court precedent, Justice Kazmi remarked:
“Preventive detention is repugnant to democratic principles and cannot be used arbitrarily. It must rest on specific and precise grounds, with a clear connection to public safety.”
Court’s Decision
The court quashed the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, directing Muzaffar’s immediate release unless required in another case. It declared the order unconstitutional for lack of substantive grounds and procedural compliance, stating: “Vagueness and non-application of mind cannot justify preventive detention.”
Case Details
– Case Title: Miyan Muzaffar vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
– Petitioner: Miyan Muzaffar, represented by Senior Advocate R.A. Jan
– Respondents: District Magistrate, Srinagar, and others
