'Records were altered': J&K High Court quashes PSA against Anantnag resident languishing in jail since 2021

A man from south Kashmir's Anantnag was booked under PSA in 2021 and lodged in Kot Bhalwal jail. Two years later, the J&K High Court has ordered the UT police to quash the preventive custody order against him as it found that the grounds under which he was detained were vague and lacking in material.

Srinagar (J&K): The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a detention of an individual under Public Safety Act (PSA in the absence of an FIR against him and asked authorities to release him "immediately from preventive custody", on Wednesday.

In 2021, Abid Hussain Ganie son of Abdul Gani Ganie, resident of Ahang Matipora Anantnag was placed under preventive detention in 2021 and lodged in Central Jail, Jammu (Kot Bhalwal) "in order to prevent him from indulging in activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State".

"Surprisingly, when no FIR is shown to have been registered against the petitioner, then how come 27 leaves of FIR etc. have been provided to him? This exhibits total non-application of mind and overzealousness on the part of the detaining authority, which casts serious doubt about the authenticity of the receipt,” a single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said and quashed the detention order against Abid Hussain Ganie, passed by District Magistrate Anantnag on October 25, 2021.

The court further noted that while the petitioner-detainee was charged with having ties to militant organisations, there was no information provided in the dossier regarding the location or the identities of the militants or terrorists under whose orders the petitioner was purportedly acting.

"Thus, the grounds being vague and lacking in material particulars, the detainee could not have made an effective representation against his detention. Therefore, there has been a violation of constitutional guarantees envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitution," the court said.

The District Magistrate of Anantnag issued the detention order based on the detention record, which, the police claimed, consisted of "36 leaves of material, including the detention order (one leaf), a notice of detention (one leaf), grounds for detention (two leaves), detention dossier (five leaves), copies of FIR, witness statements, and other pertinent documents (27 leaves)." The respondent-authority also maintained that the detainee's actions were "seriously detrimental to the state's security".

The petitioner was given a dossier of detention (05 leaves), but according to the detention record, the police dossier only has four leaves. The court stated that this suggests that the records were altered. While ordering authorities to release the petitioner immediately from preventive custody, the bench noted: "The petitioner made a submission through his father, and the respondents received it. However, there was no proof that the representation had been taken into account or that the petitioner had been informed of any decision. It was determined that this disregard for the representation violated constitutional protections."