The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the preventive detention order of former Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) corporator, Aqib Ahmad Renzu, who was detained under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) last year.
The Division Bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Choudhary, ruled that the preventive detention law was not applicable in Renzu’s case, as the ordinary criminal law was sufficient to deal with the charges leveled against him.
The court found that Renzu had been involved in seven criminal cases, but all of these were addressed under standard legal procedures, and he had been granted bail in each.
The bench asserted that granting bail in these cases could not be used as a justification for invoking the preventive detention law.
“The offences as alleged in the FIRs are not of the nature that ordinary criminal law cannot deal with those offences, and the fact that he was admitted to bail in these FIRs is no ground to detain him under preventive law. Thus, the impugned detention of the detenue is unsustainable under law,” the bench ruled.
No Threat to Public Order
A key element of the judgment was the Court’s analysis of the charges against Renzu, determining that they did not fall within the scope of a public order issue as outlined in Section 8(3) of the PSA.
The Court highlighted that while the allegations might relate to law and order violations, they did not constitute a significant threat to public order, which is a prerequisite for preventive detention under the PSA.
“The allegations against the detenue may amount to a law and order issue, but he cannot be held to have disturbed the public order,” the court stated.
Renzu was detained under the PSA in October 2023, just a week after being arrested in connection with a sexual harassment complaint. Following his arrest, he petitioned the High Court to quash his preventive detention.
Also Read: PIL Challenges Section 69 of BNS for Criminalising Sex on False Promise of Marriage
Single Judge Ruling Overturned
Earlier this year, on June 7, a single judge of the High Court dismissed Renzu’s Habeas Corpus petition.
The judge noted that Renzu’s participation in nationalist activities did not exempt him from accountability for alleged criminal activities.
The judge’s ruling suggested that his nationalist leanings were irrelevant to the legal charges he faced.
However, Renzu’s legal team, led by Advocate Shuja ul Haq, challenged this ruling before the Division Bench. They argued that Renzu was neither a “stone pelter” nor an anti-national or anti-social element, as claimed by the authorities.
Additionally, Renzu’s counsel pointed out that he had worked alongside the government for the restoration of peace in Kashmir and was part of mainstream political activities.
Also Read: Amul Wins Interim Injunction in Trademark Case Against Italian Brand ‘Amuleti’
Violation of Constitutional Rights
Another crucial factor in the Court’s decision was the failure to provide Renzu with all the material relied upon by the detaining authority.
The bench found that this omission violated his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
“It is clear from the material available on file that all the documents have not been provided to the appellant-detenue in order to enable him to make an effective representation… Non-supply of material violates the rights of the appellant-detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and would make the order unsustainable in the eyes of law,” the court concluded.
Bench and Legal Representation
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Choudhary issued the ruling quashing Renzu’s detention.
Advocate Shuja ul Haq represented Renzu, while Government Advocate Faheem Nisar argued on behalf of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.