AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for restraining the respondents from detaining them under the provisions of Public Safety Act [PSA] solely on the basis of FIR No. 27/2026, registered with Police Station Batamaloo.
The case set out by the petitioners, who are practising advocates of the District Courts, is that they were engaged as counsels in a case, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, titled “Urfee Ahad & Ors. Vs. Khursheed Ahmad Bhat” (Case No. JKSG030121102024) in the Court of 4th Additional Munsiff, Srinagar and, while they were proceeding towards the office of District Legal Services Authority, within the District Court Complex, Srinagar, to attend the mediation proceedings, they were restrained by the opposite party, namely Dr. Khursheed Ahmad Bhat, husband of their client/complainant. He made derogatory remarks against deceased mother of petitioner No. 1 and the situation escalated when the said person assaulted petitioner No. 1, by catching hold of his collar and slapping him. He recorded the entire incident in his mobile and coerced the petitioners to withdraw their vakalatnama. Subsequently, the said person uploaded a selectively edited video of the incident on the social media platforms, thereby suppressing the initial acts of aggression and provocation on his part and misrepresenting the true facts. Petitioners have preferred a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, which is pending adjudication before Judicial Magistrate (2nd Additional Munsiff), Srinagar.
It is contention of the petitioners that on the basis of aforesaid manipulated version, FIR No. 27/2026, under Sections 136 and 351(2) BNS, came to be registered against them at Police Station Batamaloo.
It is apprehension of the petitioners that respondent authorities, by abuse of the process of law, may invoke PSA against them and resort to coercive measures only on the basis of the aforesaid FIR.
According to the petitioners, preventive detention cannot be a substitute for the penal law, particularly when the alleged incident, is subject to investigation under BNS. It is contention of the petitioners that they have no criminal antecedents and the aforesaid isolated incident does not disclose any threat to the public order, warranting preventive detention.
Notice in the present case came to be issued by this court on 31.03.2026, whereby, respondents were restrained from detaining the petitioners, without prior permission of this Court, in connection with the aforesaid FIR, regarding the incident, which took place on 12.03.2026 and petitioners were also directed to file an undertaking before Registrar Judicial of this Court, affirming that they shall not take the law into their own hands and shall refrain from repeating similar incident.
Perusal of the record would show that neither respondents have come forward with the response, nor petitioners have filed any undertaking, in terms of order dated 31.03.2026.
Be that as it may, having regard to the limited nature of controversy, present petition is taken on board and disposed of with a direction to the respondents to refrain from detaining the petitioners under PSA, provided that they are not involved in any other case/crime, other than FIR No. 27/2026, for offences under Sections 136 and 351(2) BNS.
Disposed of on the above terms. Whether the Judgment is Reportable? Yes/No Whether the Judgment is Speaking? Yes/No