The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has sharply criticised the use of the Public Safety Act (PSA) against an individual for an extended period, observing that authorities appeared to invoke preventive detention with less seriousness than is applied to issuing a traffic ticket. The Court held that the detention order was a mechanical exercise of power without proper assessment of the individual’s conduct or the necessity of continued custody, and quashed the PSA order, directing the man’s release.
Background
The petitioner was detained under the PSA, which allows administrative detention without trial for preventive purposes where there is a threat to public order or security. The detention was prolonged on the basis of repeated renewals, despite a lack of fresh material justifying continuation.
Court’s Observations
The High Court noted that a preventive detention order should be a measure of last resort, invoked only when there is clear, contemporaneous evidence of danger to public order or security.
In the present case, the Court found that the authorities relied on stale and speculative material and failed to demonstrate why less restrictive measures would not suffice.
The Bench drew an emphatic contrast, observing that issuing a traffic challan often requires immediate assessment and justification, whereas the authorities in this case showed little diligence in reviewing the preventive detention order before renewal.
Outcome
Given the lack of persuasive evidence showing that the individual posed a continuing threat, the High Court quashed the preventive detention order and directed his immediate release.
Legal Significance
This judgment reinforces that preventive detention powers must not be used as a routine administrative device. Courts will scrutinise such orders to ensure they are grounded in genuine assessments of risk, public order necessity, and demonstrable material — not merely on vague or outdated claims.
