J&K HC summons Srinagar Deputy Commissioner over detention order under PSA passed ‘without application of mind’

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has sought personal appearance of the Deputy Commissioner of Srinagar on Thursday over a “recklessly and mechanically passed detention order without due application of mind” while hearing a case of preventive detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA).

“Personal liberty occupies a position of paramount importance in the constitutional scheme. Its deprivation, even for a single day, constitutes an injury which cannot subsequently be undone by the mere restoration of liberty,” Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal said.
The judge passed the order in the case pertaining to preventive detention of an accused from the Valley “on the basis of allegations concerning his purported association with terrorist elements and activities allegedly prejudicial to the security of the State”.

“Preventive detention, being an exceptional departure from the ordinary criminal process, must accordingly be exercised with utmost circumspection and strict adherence to the safeguards prescribed by the Constitution and the applicable law. The more extraordinary the power, the greater is the obligation to ensure that its exercise remains within the bounds of constitutional legitimacy,” observed the judge.

‘Explanation sought’

The court ordered the Deputy Commissioner to appear in person on the next date of hearing “to furnish an explanation as to why he has recklessly and mechanically passed the impugned detention order without due application of mind”. The case has been listed on Thursday.

Justice Nargal held that in the present case, the nature of the allegations, the apparent absence of specific material particulars on the grounds of detention and the prima facie concern regarding the manner in which the detention order has been formulated warrant further examination.

“This court is of the considered view that the matter cannot be allowed to proceed without seeking an explanation from the authority constitutionally and statutorily entrusted with the responsibility of passing the impugned order. The issue is not confined merely to the individual grievance raised in the petition; it also concerns the manner in which the extraordinary power of preventive detention is being exercised and the extent to which the requisite independent application of mind is reflected in the record,” observed Justice Nargal.