AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raina, J.—One cannot pretend to be oblivious to the unprecedented and unexceptional turbulance that came to prevail in the State of J. and
K. since the begining of the current decade of this last millennium. The mayhem created by the elements, local as also the mercenaries, traumatised
the society. The rule of law yielded to the gun and bullet. No one could stand up against the dictates of the militants and the terrorists who held the
society as hostage to subvert the social order and the security of the State. The aim and object of the militants instigated, incited, abetted, trained
and armed by the external elements, supported by the local blacksheep has been to cause cecession (cessation) of the State of J. and K. from the
Union of India. The ordinary laws failed in the abovesaid situation to arrest the worsening security scenario. In order to prevent the situation from
going completely out of hands and in order to prevent the militants, their harbourers and sympathisers from subverting the peace and security of the
State, the resort to preventive detention became necessary and unavoidable. It was in this backdrop that the District Magistrate, Budgam invoked
his power under Section 8 (2) of the J. and K. Public Safety Act, so as to prevent the respondent, herein, from committing those acts that were
prejudicial to the public order and security of the State.
The preventive detention of the detenu came to be ordered for eighteen months on the grounds :
You are born and brought up in villageRawalpora Tehsil Beerwa. You have received education upto 9th and are presently working as Mason in
Srinagar. You are in active, dedicated and staunch member of JKLF, an outlawed organisation having its Hqrs. in POK/PAK. The aim and object
of the organisation is to secede the State of J. and K. from Union of India through armed struggle. To achieve this goal the organisation has phased
its programme in different stages, i.e. To Motivate Kashmiri Muslim Youth to join their organisation and to work for it, to send them to POK/PAK
for attaining armed training in handling of sophisticated arms/ammunition and explosives and to indulge the arms/amn. provided to them, in
subversive and disruptive activities in the Valley to circulate and distribute the antinational literature among people, to kill the diginitaries and to
attack at security forces with intention to kill them, to indulge in extortion of money from local civil population to set ablaze the civil and private
property with intention to liberate the State of J. and K. from Union of India by resorting to an armed struggle in the Valley.
That the JUM militants threatened you and you were forced to work with them. You denied to do so, by keeping in view the conditions of your
family member. To save your life from JUM militants, you joined the JKLF on 1991. You were sent to Muzzafferabad (POK) for attaining in
handling of sophisticated arms/amn. explosive in July1991. After completion of the said training you were provided with arms/amn. and were
directed to use the arms/amn. in indulging the terrorist and subversive activities. You were infiltrated to the valley in the year Sept. 1991. After
return from across you indulged in subversive and disruptive activities in the Valley for a period of sixmonths. After then you started your own
work of Masonary in the city and other places, till your apprehension.
From the abovementioned facts it is clear that your activities are highly judicial to the security of the State. No doubt you are presently lodged in
APLU/Bgm, but there is every likelihood that you may get released on bail which will defeat the purpose to deter you from continuing acts
prejudicial to the security of the State. Hence, you Gh. Mohiuddin Mir Sarvar S/o Ab. Samad Mir R/o Rawalpora, Tehsil Beerwa, District
Budgam, aged 26 years, are hereby detained under Section 8 as envisaged in J. and K. Public Safety Act.
This order of detenion came to be challenged in Habeas Corpus No. 71 of 1997. The learned Judge who disposed of this petition held that
sufficient reasons and sufficient material was not made available to the District Magistrate to clamp the preventive detention on the detenu. The
learned Judge felt that resort to preventive detention could not have been made for the past prejudicial activities of the detenu which were not at all
proximues in time to the passing of the detention order. The detention order thus got quashed with the direction to the appellant to compensate the
detenu in the amount of Rs. 10,000/.
Aggrieved, the State has come up in appeal to challenge the impugned order on the ground inter alia that the determination of the sufficiency or
otherwise of the reasons or the grounds for preventive detention fell beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny. It is further projected that the order for
payment of compensation to the detenu is unwarranted on facts and nonsustainable on the ratio of the judgment in D. K. Basu's case (AIR 1997
SC 610 : 1997 Cri LJ 743).
It appears that the attention of the learned Judge got focused on the finding that the grounds of detention were too remote in time to the order of
detention and that the detaining authority had not stated as to why resort had been made to the preventive detention. It is thus unavoidable to refer
to the detention order which says that in order to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it was
necessary to detain him for a period of eighteen months. It is thus rightly contended that the detaining authority has sufficiently disclosed in the order
the reasons for resort being made to the preventive detention.
The copy of the FIR No. 256/96, Police Station Beerwah, reveals that one RPG launcher was recovered on 581996 from the detenu. This
circumstance viewed in the perspective of the prevailing security scenario is sufficient to repell the respondent's contention that no grounds,
proximate to the passing of the detention order, existed to clamp the preventive detention.
The consistent view held is that it is not for the Court to consider the sufficiency of the reasons which induced the authority to issue the order of
detention. The sufficiency and the matter on which the detaining authority based its satisfaction to order the detention cannot be the subject of
judicial scrutiny. The Apex Court has ruled far back in Atma Ram's case, AIR 1951 SC 157 (160) : (1951) (52) Cri LJ 373 (Para 5) :
. . . the question of satisfaction, except on the grounds of mala fides, cannot be challenged in a Court. . . .
Satisfaction required by the preventive detention law is the satisfaction of the detaining authority and not the satisfaction of the Court. The Courts
have no power to determine the sufficiency of the reasons which induced the authority to issue the order. It is the subjective satisfaction that
determines the concerned authorities approach.
The order of detention was issued, as noticed above, on 22nd of Oct. 1996. The detenu was on that date already in custody. The detention
order could thus at the best change his lodgement. The date of detention must be deemed, in this situation, to have synchronisd with the date of the
order. It is thus that the period of eighteen months, for which the detention was ordered, has to be reckoned from the date of the order. This
period of eighteen months has since run out. No purpose, other than academic, is therefore, going to be served by determining the correctness of
the reasons assigned by the learned Judge in quashing the detention order.
Now that the period for which the respondent could be detained under the order has since lapsed and the order has been quashed further
comment about the reasons on which the learned Judge has held the order to be invalid is not necessary or warranted.
It is to be noticed that the learned Judge while relying on the case D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 : (1997 Cri LJ 743)
came to direct that as the detenu had been deprived of his personal liberty under the invalid order of detention so he be compensated. The ratio of
D. K. Basu's case appears to be not applicable to the facts and the circumstances of the present case as it has nowhere been pleaded, muchless
shown, that the detention order was induced by the mala fides of the detaining authority. It is nobody's case that the detenu was subjected, after
detention, to custodial violence at any point of time. The case for the detenu was that the detention order was illegal or improper on the ground of
nonapplication of mind by the detaining authority and on account of want of nexus between the alleged past activities of the detenu and the order of
detention. On legalistic approach only has the detenion order been found to be invalid. On realistic considerations, which are relevant, qua the
awarding of compensation, wrongful deprivation of personal liberty through the order of preventive detention, where no mala fides are even
alleged, payment of compensation is unwarranted on the ratio of D. K. Basu's case. On the facts and the circumstances of the case we find
ourselves unable to subscribe to the view that the detenu is entitled to be compensated for his preventive detention that has been quashed.
For the reasons aforesaid we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge in so far as it directs the payment of
compensation in the amount of Rs. 10,000/ to the respondent, herein.
No order as to costs.