J&K Public Safety Act militates against natural justice; HC's refusal to intervene in bar council chief's case gives law greater impunity
FirstpostUnder the PSA, the government detains a person; the same government hears the detenu’s representation against such detention; and the same government determines if there was a sufficient case for detention. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the detention of the 76-year old President of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Mian Abdul Qayoom, under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, in Mian Abdul Qayoom v. State of J&K justified Qayoom’s detention on the basis that Qayoom propagated secessionist ideologies in the past, that criminal cases were registered against him and his associates for violating various laws in the past, and that the detaining authority was subjectively satisfied that Qayoom must be detained. Therefore, under the PSA, the government detains a person; the same government hears the detenu’s representation against such detention; and the same government determines if there was a sufficient case for detention. Further, in the same case, the Supreme Court also clearly held that the “[c>ourt is entitled to scrutinise the material relied upon by the [detaining> [a>uthority in coming to its conclusion, and accordingly determine if there is an objective basis for the subjective satisfaction.” However, in the Qayoom case, the high court held the exact opposite, that the “subjective satisfaction of a detaining authority to detain a person or not, is not open to objective assessment by a Court,” and that the “[c>ourt is not a proper forum to scrutinise the merits of administrative decision to detain a person.” In holding so, the high court did not merely digress from the established law, but also did away with its power to review the government’s detention orders, and tacitly endorsed the unbridled power of the government to detain any person arbitrarily.