Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Monday quashed the preventive detention of former Bar President Nazir Ahmad Ronga.
Ronga was arrested after a midnight raid at his house in Srinagar on July 10, 2024. He was later booked under the Public Safety Act (PSA)- under which a person can be jailed upto two years without a trial.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while quashing the preventive detention of Ronga said the allegations levelled against the petitioner on the grounds of detention are vague, ambiguous and lacking in material particulars.
The Court found that the District Magistrate, Srinagar, did not apply his mind while passing the detention order.
“In the present case, the detaining authority has not referred to any intelligence reports nor reference to such intelligence reports is there in the police dossier. In fact, the detention record produced before this Court does not contain any intelligence report that would go on to show that the petitioner has continued to hold the same ideology for which he was detained in the year 2019,” the Court said.
The Court said the manner in which the grounds of detention have been formulated by the detaining authority clearly reflects non application of mind on its part.
“The conclusion and the grounds appear to be of general nature without any specific details about the particular role played by the petitioner,” the Court said.
The Court found that petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was held to be infringed because the detention grounds were ambiguous, preventing him from making an effective representation against his detention.
“The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority, in these circumstances, has become a casualty. On this ground also, the impugned order of detention is not sustainable in law. For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed,” the order by Justice Dhar read.
“The respondents are directed to release Ronga from the preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case,” the Court order said.
