(AI image)
SRINAGAR: Public Safety Act (PSA) was invoked by authorities against a suspect with “non-seriousness” that beats even the sloppiness in issuing a “routine traffic challan”, Jammu and Kashmir high court has held and ordered release of the man jailed nearly two years under J&K’s preventive detention law.The single-judge bench of Justice Rahul Bharti quashed the April 20, 2024, detention order against Shabir Ahmad Dar, 28, ruling that the action against the resident of Anantnag’s Kokernag was “illegal right from its inception”. PSA allows detention up to two years without trial.“This court has no hesitation in observing that J&K Public Safety Act against the petitioner has been invoked by non-seriousness of standard with which even a motorist is not subjected to a routine traffic challan,” Justice Bharti said in a recent order.J&K politicians, especially former CM Mehbooba Mufti and Peoples Conference’s Sajad Lone, have long alleged hundreds of illegal PSA detentions and pressed for the release of such people.In this case, the Anantnag SSP had submitted a dossier against Dar to the district magistrate (DM) in April, 17, 2024 seeking Dar’s PSA detention, claiming his activities were “prejudicial to J&K’s security”. Twelve days later, the DM ordered Dar’s detention in a Jammu prison. Section 8 of PSA gives J&K DMs’ powers to detain anyone under PSA on grounds of security.In this case, the Anantnag DM relied on the police dossier of two pages and an FIR of July 2022 under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to book Dar. The grounds of detention mentioned Dar’s work at a madrassa in Kokernag as well as alleged suspicious activities on social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp and Snapchat.Dar moved the HC against detention in May 2024. Justice Bharti held that his detention “is literally on the dictation of the SSP Anantnag, with the DM Anantnag, at no point of time applying his own independent mind”.Justice Bharti questioned how the authorities could cite an FIR in which Dar did not figure as an accused or an undertrial to justify their apprehension about “alleged activities perceived to be prejudicial to the security of the State”.“To put it simply, the petitioner has been subjected to preventive detention custody just by a blank reference on the part of the SSP followed by equally bland application of mind on the part of the DM Anantnag,” the HC held.
