Facts
The petitioner, Tariq Ahmad Rah, was detained by respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Anantnag) vide Detention Order No. 23/DMA/PSA/DET/2025 dated 16.05.2025 under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA).
Source reference: p. 1The grounds for detention cited his involvement in FIR No. 09/2025 (Section 420 IPC) and FIR No. 11/2025 (Sections 420 and 506 IPC) related to cheating.
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner was granted bail in these criminal cases prior to the detention order.
Source reference: p. 2Through his wife, the petitioner submitted a post-detention representation to the Government on 25.06.2025 via registered post, which remained unconsidered by the authorities.
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the non-consideration of the petitioner’s representation by the detaining authority and the Government violates the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5).
Source reference: p. 2, 42. Whether the grounds of detention based on cheating under the IPC were sufficient to justify preventive detention for the maintenance of "Public Order."
Source reference: p. 7Law Applied
The court primarily applied Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that a detaining authority must afford the earliest opportunity for a representation and consider it without unreasonable delay.
Source reference: p. 4, 5Reliance on Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1980) regarding the illegality of inordinate delay.
Source reference: p. 5Reliance on Dr. Rahmatullah v. State of Bihar (1981) regarding the constitutional guarantee of proper consideration of representation.
Source reference: p. 5Reliance on Kundanbhai Dulabhai Sheikh v. District Magistrate Ahmedabad (1996) which establishes that delay in disposing of a representation is grounds for quashing a detention order.
Source reference: p. 6The court also applied Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
Source reference: p. 1Reasoning
The court found that the petitioner had indeed filed a representation on 25.06.2025, supported by postal receipts, yet the respondents failed to provide an explanation for its non-consideration.
Source reference: p. 4The Bench reasoned that the Government is under a legal obligation to consider such representations as early as possible to protect the liberty guaranteed by Article 19; any "slackness, indifference, or callous attitude" renders the detention illegal.
Source reference: p. 4, 6The court noted that the detaining authority's argument—that it became functus officio after the order was sent to the Government for confirmation—cannot absolve it or the Government of their constitutional duty.
Source reference: p. 6The court observed that the allegations against the petitioner involved specific criminal offenses (cheating) for which he was already being prosecuted under normal law, and such "vague" accusations regarding private disputes do not suffice to meet the threshold of "prejudicial to Public Order" required for preventive detention.
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the failure to consider the representation and the reliance on vague grounds vitiated the detention order.
The Court allowed the petition and quashed Detention Order No. 23/DMA/PSA/DET/2025 dated 16.05.2025 and directed the respondents to release Tariq Ahmad Rah forthwith, provided he is not required in any other criminal cases.
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
TARIQ AHMAD RAH TH. HIS WIFEvsUNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (HOME) AND ANR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in