Search

Judicial application of mind is necessary in orders of preventive detention.

Case: Surinder Singh v. Union Territory of J&K, WP (Crl) No. 16 of 2020.

Bench: Single judge bench of Justice Puneet Gupta.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent where the petitioner was detained under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, on the grounds that reasons of detention was not explained to him so he was not in a position to make proper representations before the government.

Contentions of petitioner

Mr. Ankur Sharma, the counsel on behalf of petitioner made contentions that the impugned order lacks judicial application of mind and the order is just a duplication of dossier of police.

Observations of the Court.

The court after observing the contentions of the petitioner and delving deeper into the facts of the case reiterated certain supreme court judgments which are not only applicable to the present case but also to the future cases. In Rajesh Vashdev Advani v. State of Maharashtra,[i] it was held that Non-application of mind by the Court and duplication of police dossier attracts setting aside the said order passed by it. In Jai Singh v. State of J&K,[ii] It was held that “A detention order encapsulating the same wordings as the dossier is liable to be quashed.”

Judgment of the court

The court stated that the very fundamental purpose of the preventive detention order is to prevent the person from committing the acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. While passing the order for preventive detention application of judicial mind is necessary and the order can't be passed in a very casual way, therefore depriving right to life and personal liberty of a person.

- Devesh Tripathi

[i] Rajesh Vashdev Advani v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 8 SCC 390. [ii] Jai Singh v. State of J&K (1985) 1 SCC 561.

35 views0 comments