The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed a preventive detention order against Rouf Ahmad Wani, holding that outdated criminal cases and general allegations of anti-social activities cannot justify detention without a demonstrated threat to public order.
Justice Sanjay Parihar allowed the habeas corpus petition challenging an order issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The Court found that the material relied upon by the authorities did not establish a sufficient and current connection between the alleged activities and the need for preventive detention.
Background
The District Magistrate issued the detention order on October 24, 2024, based on a police dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag. The grounds referred to criminal cases dating back to 2005, 2006 and 2007, along with FIR No. 16/2020 registered at Achabal Police Station under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Wani challenged the order before its execution. According to the judgment, he had sought certified copies of the detention order and its grounds from the competent authority but did not receive them. The High Court subsequently directed the authorities to produce the order and stayed its execution.
The Court noted that the principal criminal cases relied upon by the authorities had ended in acquittal. It observed that the incidents were nearly two decades old and that the respondents had not demonstrated how they established a continuing threat in October 2024.
The judgment clarified that acquittal does not automatically make every underlying incident irrelevant to preventive detention. However, authorities must establish a continuing and sufficiently close connection between past conduct and the anticipated threat.
The Court observed:
“Mere reproduction of old criminal antecedents, without any material demonstrating continuity of prejudicial conduct or a present likelihood of its recurrence, cannot sustain the requisite subjective satisfaction.”
Examining the 2020 FIR, the Court distinguished an ordinary breach of law and order from conduct that threatens public order. It explained that a criminal allegation, by itself, does not establish that the normal life of the community has been disturbed or is likely to be disrupted.
The Court further noted that the authorities had made general allegations concerning anti-social activities, impersonation, fraudulent dealings and other conduct. However, they had not provided specific incidents or particulars demonstrating the alleged impact on public order.
It held:
“A general allegation that a person is indulging in anti-social activities, or that his conduct may disturb the peaceful environment of society, cannot by itself furnish a lawful foundation for preventive detention.”
The Court also considered that the detention order had remained unexecuted for a considerable period without a satisfactory explanation. It found that this delay further weakened the claimed necessity for detention.
Concluding that the authorities had failed to establish the required connection between the alleged conduct and the necessity for preventive detention, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed Detention Order No. 26/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated October 24, 2024.
