Read Time: 09 minutes
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Friday upheld preventive detention of one Muntazir Ahmad Bhat under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. Allegedly, Bhat is associated with members of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), a banned terrorist organisation.
Noting that grounds of detention had revealed that Bhat was also involved in attack on one army patrolling vehicle in Pulwama District which had resulted in martyrdom of 1 army person, the Bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan observed,
“There is no reason why the Executive cannot take recourse to its power of preventive detention in those cases where the Court is genuinely satisfied that no prosecution could possibly succeed against detenu because he is a dangerous person who has overawed witnesses or against whom no one is prepared to depose.”
Before the bench, the record produced by the State had revealed that Bhat used to meet various terrorists of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) under whose influence he had developed radical ideology.
It was shown that Bhat was a close accomplice of an active terrorist, Yasir Ahmad Parray and in 2019 along-with he had purchased a Maruti car.
As per records, on the instructions of another terrorist from Pakistan, Junaid Bhat, detenu Bhat loaded that Maruti car with IED and exploded it on the road near Arihal Village of District Pulwama by targeting patrolling vehicle of 44 RR and also indulged in indiscriminate firing upon the army patrolling party.
It was alleged that the attack was done with the motive and intention to kill army personnel, resulting in the martyrdom of 1 army person and injuries to many others.
As a result of which, the District Magistrate Pulwama on July 12, 2021, had placed Bhat under preventive detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. \
Bhat had come to the high court seeking directions for quashing of that District Magistrate order, which the high court refused.
Referring to the observations made by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya (1951), the high court said,
“In the light of the aforesaid position of law settled by the Six-Judge Constitution Bench,…… This Court, while examining the material, which is made basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, would not act as a court of appeal and find fault with the satisfaction on the ground that on the basis of the material before detaining authority another view was possible.”
Court said that the court does not even go into the questions whether the facts mentioned in the grounds of detention are correct or false because the reason for the rule is that to decide this, evidence may have to be taken by the courts and that it is not the policy of the law of preventive detention.
Accordingly, court held that the instant matter was well within the competence of the advisory board which had passed Bhat’s preventive detention order.
Further stating that those who are responsible for national security or for maintenance of public order must be the sole judges of what the national security, public order or security of the State requires, the court dismissed Bhat's writ petition holding it shorn of any merit.
Some Significant observations
In the order, the court has made some noteworthy remarks. Court has stated, "Extremism, radicalism, terrorism have become the most worrying features of the contemporary life."
The order further reads, "Though violent behaviour is not new, the contemporary extremism, radicalism, terrorism in its full incarnation have obtained a different character and poses extraordinary threats to civilized world. The basic edifices of a modern State, like democracy, State security, public order, rule of law, sovereignty and integrity, basic human rights, etcetera, are under attack of such extreme, radical and terror acts."
Stressing upon the impending threat to Nation's security, the court has further stated, "The threat that we are facing is now on an unprecedented global scale. Terrorism has become a global threat with global effects. It has become a challenge to the whole community of civilized nations."
Court has also said that terrorism in a single country can readily become a threat to regional peace and security owing to its spill over ramifications, it is, therefore, difficult in the present context to draw sharp distinctions between domestic and international terrorism.
Please Login or Register