The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently directed the District Magistrate of Jammu to pay ₹10,000 as costs for ordering the unjustified detention of a man under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA) [Surjeet Singh alias Sonu v/s Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir].
Justice Atul Sreedharan found the detention order vague and criticized the District Magistrate’s attempt to justify it. Referring to the reasons cited for preventive detention, the Court stated:
“Paragraph 7 of the detention order reflects a twisted reasoning and thought process by the District Magistrate, intended more to confuse than to convince. It demonstrates an effort to justify the unjustifiable.”
The Court made these observations while granting a habeas corpus petition filed by Surjeet Singh alias Sonu through his wife, challenging his detention under the PSA ordered on January 30.
The Court noted that the grounds for Singh’s detention primarily cited four criminal cases against him, one of which dated back to 2012 and was considered too old to justify PSA detention.
Moreover, apart from a charge of attempted murder in a 2021 case, the other cases were primarily interpersonal in nature and did not pose a threat to public order or the security of the State, according to the Court.
“At first glance, except for FIR No. 4/2021, all cases appear to be interpersonal disputes which do not in any way threaten the security of the State or public order,” the Court stated in its order dated July 9.
The Court further noted that the government’s counsel failed to demonstrate that the detaining authority had applied proper judgment before ordering the detention under PSA.
Consequently, the High Court ordered the release of the petitioner and directed the District Magistrate, Jammu to personally pay ₹10,000 as costs to Surjeet Singh.
“The imposition of costs is deemed necessary in light of the observations made in paragraph No. 7 of the detention grounds,” the High Court emphasized.
The Court also allowed the petitioner to file a contempt of court petition if the costs were not paid by the District Magistrate within two weeks.
Advocate Satinder Gupta represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Rajesh Thapa appeared for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
