The J&K and Ladakh High Court on Thursday quashed the detention of one Mohammad Jaffer Sheikh of Kishtwar under the Public Safety Act, saying that the mere recording of daily diary reports (DDR) entries by the police alleging no specific acts against the petitioner cannot be grounds for detaining him.
“Personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps more important than the other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and, it was for this reason that the Founding Fathers enacted the safeguards in Article 22 of the Constitution so as to limit the power of the State to detain a person without trial, which may otherwise pass the test of Article 21, by humanizing the harsh authority over individual liberty,” observed Justice M A Chowdhary while referring to several judgments of the Supreme Court.
Jaffer Sheikh was detained under the PSA in November last year, allegedly to prevent him from being involved in any activity that is “in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State”. This came after he took part in protests against the construction of hydel power projects in the district.
After hearing the petitioner’s lawyers, Advocates S S Ahmed and Rahul Raina, Justice Chowdhary observed that the registration of three FIRs at Kishtwar police station and recording of four DDRs by the police at Kishtwar and Dool appear to have weighed heavily with the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order.
The petitioner’s lawyers argued that their client was not supplied with the material that formed the basis of the grounds for his detention, nor was it explained to him in a language that he understands. They said that old FIRs from 1997, 2015 and 2019 were used as the basis for his detention. They also said that a representation filed by the petitioner to the respondents was not considered, nor was its outcome conveyed to him.
Quashing the detention order, Justice Chowdhary observed that as far as DDR entries recorded against the petitioner are concerned, a perusal of the grounds of detention would show that those have not culminated in any criminal cases, and that merely recording DDRs alleging no specific acts cannot be the ground to detain a person. The judge also noted issues in how the petitioner’s representation to the government was handled.
The court ordered the release of the petitioner from preventive custody forthwith, if not required in any other cases.
