Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directs United States administration to pay compensation of Rs 5 lakh to Ali Mohammad Lone alias Zahid, former spokesperson of banned Jamaat-e-Islami organization for illegal detention under public security Is. act.
Quashing Lone's detention under the PSA, Justice Rahul Bharti said the detention order passed by the Pulwama District Magistrate read with government orders granting and confirming preventive detention is considered illegal and unreasonable.
The 13-page order said, "Therefore, the said order along with the preventive detention of the petitioner is quashed and cancelled. The concerned jail superintendent, where the petitioner has been detained, shall send the petitioner to his jail. Instructions are given to release from."Text passed by Justice Bharti.
Although the petitioner had claimed compensation of Rs 25 lakh, the court said a compensation of Rs 5 lakh would serve the ends of justice.
"Therefore, apart from holding and declaring the preventive detention of the petitioner illegal, the petitioner is also entitled to a compensation of Rs five lakh payable by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of this judgment."
Lone was first arrested in 2019 but his preventive detention was canceled by the court in July that year. However, he was detained again under the preventive law within six days but the court canceled the order in 2020.Within three months, he was again booked under preventive laws, but in 2021 the court canceled the detention.
"The passing of the impugned custody order, which is the fourth consecutive one, against the like-minded petitioner, conducted through th Please leave to read at least the final judgment dated 24/02/2021 harassing the SSP Pulwama and respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Pulwama, so as to appreciate the judgment in which this Court, in a very clear and In clear words, the grounds for preventive detention of the petitioner for the third time rest on old grounds,” the court said.
"Now if the three judgments of this Court quashing the preventive detention of the petitioner have not been noticed thrice already, then why should it not be that the wisdom exercised on the part of the SSP Pulwama, th respondent No. 2- District Magistrate Pulwama and also for the last time by the respondent no. 1 Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, then how can it be claimed by the said three authorities at their respective ends that the preventive detention of the petitioner for the fourth time is the result of an open and fair trial. It is a mindset that operates on changes in the factual scenario,” the court further said.Taking a tough stance on officers ignoring its orders, the court said, "This court cannot be diplomatic in avoiding to observe that if left to the will of the SSP Pulwama and respondent no. 2- District Magistrate, Pulwama Then the verdict will be announced." The cancellation of preventive detention of a person by the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court is not a matter of interest to them and the same person may have to face cyclical preventive detention by repeating this pretext that the preventive detention granted has not been cancelled. More than decisions to be made.”
"It appears that the SSP Pulwama and the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Pulwama, by continuing the preventive detention of the petitioner, have violated the law and have additional constitutional powers in their respective jurisdiction in the matter of repeatedly targeting the petitioner with preventive action. Without taking into account the fact that every time SAI fails to maintain preventive custody before the court,'' the court said.
Quashing Lone's detention under the PSA, Justice Rahul Bharti said the detention order passed by the Pulwama District Magistrate read with government orders granting and confirming preventive detention is considered illegal and unreasonable.
The 13-page order said, "Therefore, the said order along with the preventive detention of the petitioner is quashed and cancelled. The concerned jail superintendent, where the petitioner has been detained, shall send the petitioner to his jail. Instructions are given to release from."Text passed by Justice Bharti.
Although the petitioner had claimed compensation of Rs 25 lakh, the court said a compensation of Rs 5 lakh would serve the ends of justice.
"Therefore, apart from holding and declaring the preventive detention of the petitioner illegal, the petitioner is also entitled to a compensation of Rs five lakh payable by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of this judgment."
Lone was first arrested in 2019 but his preventive detention was canceled by the court in July that year. However, he was detained again under the preventive law within six days but the court canceled the order in 2020.Within three months, he was again booked under preventive laws, but in 2021 the court canceled the detention.
"The passing of the impugned custody order, which is the fourth consecutive one, against the like-minded petitioner, conducted through th Please leave to read at least the final judgment dated 24/02/2021 harassing the SSP Pulwama and respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Pulwama, so as to appreciate the judgment in which this Court, in a very clear and In clear words, the grounds for preventive detention of the petitioner for the third time rest on old grounds,” the court said.
"Now if the three judgments of this Court quashing the preventive detention of the petitioner have not been noticed thrice already, then why should it not be that the wisdom exercised on the part of the SSP Pulwama, th respondent No. 2- District Magistrate Pulwama and also for the last time by the respondent no. 1 Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, then how can it be claimed by the said three authorities at their respective ends that the preventive detention of the petitioner for the fourth time is the result of an open and fair trial. It is a mindset that operates on changes in the factual scenario,” the court further said.Taking a tough stance on officers ignoring its orders, the court said, "This court cannot be diplomatic in avoiding to observe that if left to the will of the SSP Pulwama and respondent no. 2- District Magistrate, Pulwama Then the verdict will be announced." The cancellation of preventive detention of a person by the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court is not a matter of interest to them and the same person may have to face cyclical preventive detention by repeating this pretext that the preventive detention granted has not been cancelled. More than decisions to be made.”
"It appears that the SSP Pulwama and the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Pulwama, by continuing the preventive detention of the petitioner, have violated the law and have additional constitutional powers in their respective jurisdiction in the matter of repeatedly targeting the petitioner with preventive action. Without taking into account the fact that every time SAI fails to maintain preventive custody before the court,'' the court said.
