Srinagar, June 14: Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ordered an immediate release of a man from south Kashmiri’s Pulwama district while quashing his detention under Public Safety Act (PSA).
Underscoring that the only precious and valuable right guaranteed to a detenue is of making an effective representation against his order of detention, a bench of Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey quashed the detention of Tanveer Ahmad Sheergojri of Checkpora, Newa, Pulwama.
The detenue was booked under PSA by virtue of an order passed by district magistrate Pulwama on August 7, 2019.
In his habeas corpus plea, the petitioner contended that the grounds taken in the detention order and the material relied upon had no relevance because he was already in custody. He further submitted that he was not provided the material forming basis of the detention order to make an effective representation against the order.
While allowing the plea, the court held that the only precious and valuable right guaranteed to a detenue was of making an effective representation against the order of detention. “Such an effective representation can only be made by a detenue when he is supplied the relevant grounds of detention, including the materials considered by the detaining authority for arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order.”
The right of the detenue to file such representation, the court said, was impinged upon and the detention order was resultantly “vitiated” as the material was not supplied to the detenu.
With regard to explaining of the grounds of detention to the detenue in a language he understood, the court said there was no material to that effect on record. “Perusal of file reveals, that there is nothing to show or suggest that the grounds of detention couched in English language were explained to the detenue in a language understood by him.”
The court cited a judgment wherein the supreme court has said: If the ‘grounds’ are only verbally explained to the detenue and nothing in writing is left with him in a language which he understands, then that purpose is not served, and the constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) is infringed.”