J&K&L High Court Imposes ₹10,000 Cost On District Magistrate For Unjustified Preventive Detention Order

A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan found the detention order to be vague and criticized the District Magistrate's attempt to rationalize an unjustifiable action. The Court said, “learned counsel for the 4 Union Territory has not been able to demonstrate from the grounds of detention that such a finding of probable bail or bail already having been granted was a factor that bears in the minds of the detaining authority. 08. Under the circumstances, petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be set forth at liberty. A cost of ₹10,000/- is imposed on the District Magistrate, Jammu personally which shall be paid to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a petition of contempt against the District Magistrate, Jammu.”

Advocate Satinder Gupta appeared for the appellant, while Additional Advocate General Rajesh Thapa appeared for the Respondents.

The Court scrutinized the grounds for detention which primarily cited four criminal cases against appellant. It noted that one of these cases dated back to 2012, which the court deemed too outdated to justify PSA detention. Moreover, except for an attempt to murder charge in a 2021 case, the allegations in the cited cases were predominantly interpersonal in nature and did not pertain to threats to public order or state security.

The High Court emphasized that the government's counsel failed to demonstrate that the District Magistrate had applied proper judgment before ordering his detention under PSA. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release.

Furthermore, the High Court deemed it necessary to impose a ₹10,000 fine on the District Magistrate of the detention grounds, which it criticized as exhibiting convoluted reasoning and an attempt to confuse rather than justify the detention. The Court added, “Paragraph 7 quoted hereinabove, reflects that twisted reasoning and thought process of the District Magistrate and deserves to be deprecated strongly. It is vague and the language used is intended to confuse rather than convince and it reflects an anxiety on the part of the District Magistrate, Jammu to justify the unjustifiable.”

The Court underscored the importance of accountability in such matters by directing that the fine be personally paid by the District Magistrate.

Cause Title: Surjeet Singh Alias Sonu v. Union Territory of Jammu &d Kashmir & Ors.