Invoking right to representation under Article 22, HC quashes PSA detention of 4 persons

Invoking right to representation under Article 22, HC quashes PSA detention of 4 persons

Srinagar: The J&K High Court on Saturday quashed four Public Safety Act (PSA) detention orders after reiterating that the detaining authority must explain satisfactorily the inordinate delay in executing the detention order, otherwise the order will be untenable in the eyes of law.
The court referred to Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution and said that when any person is detained under an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him or her the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.
The court recorded that unreasonable delay in executing the order creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the immediate necessity of detaining the detenu in order to prevent him from carrying on the prejudicial activity referred to in the grounds of detention.
The court said that in case of Ishfaq Ahmad Ganaie of Pulwama, there was a delay of over 14 months with respect to the execution of the detention order, which cannot sustain under the principles of the law laid down.
In case of Amir Shafi Bhat, the court said that the detaining authority had slapped simultaneous detention orders against the detenu on the same grounds which vitiate the detention order itself and cannot sustain in the eyes of law.
The court also noted that in cases of Mudasir Reshi and Mukhtar Ahmad Bhat, the detaining authority had failed to let the detenues to make any representations nor were they supplied with relevant material.
It was recorded that the detenu had the right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention.
“That constitutional right includes within its compass the right to be furnished with adequate particulars of the grounds of detention order,” the court said.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.