Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has ruled that participation of a person in nationalist activities cannot make him immune to legal reprisals for indulgence in criminal activities.
The court made the ruling while dismissing a habeas corpus petition of a Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) Corporator, Aqib Ahmad Renzu.
The petitioner Renzu, currently residing at Kralsangri Brein Nishat, had been detained and under Public Safety Act (PSA) and lodged in Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu.
He pleaded through his lawyer of being a “nationalist, having participated in many nationalist activities”, and that as such, he could not have been detained under the preventive detention law.
He also said that he has been active in mainstream politics and in order to substantiate his contention, he highlighted his activities in the events like ‘Har Ghar Tiranga’ and hoisting of national flag at Char Chinari inside the Dal Lake.
After hearing the state and the petitioner, Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that a person indulging in criminal activities, cannot take shelter behind nationalist activities in which he may have participated at some point of time in his career.
The judge noted that merely because the petitioner may have indulged in some activities which are nationalist in character does not give him a licence to indulge in criminal activities.
“The petitioner may have been associated with the aforesaid nationalist activities but that does not insulate him and provide him immunity from being proceeded against for indulging in serious criminal activities which endanger the peace of the society. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is bound to fail,” said the court.
The petitioner had challenged a detention order of 2023, issued by District Magistrate, so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The petitioner contended that his detention under PSA “has been issued without application of mind as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue”.
He petition said that the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic in nature and based on stale incidents which have no proximate and live link with the detention order, adding “the safeguards provided under law have not been complied with in his case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to him”.
It further read that the representation filed by the detenue against his detention has not been considered.
The defendant state insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and read over and explained to him.
The court noted that the petitioner has not placed on record any receipt or postal receipt to show that his representation to the government against the detention has actually been received by the respondents.
In the absence of any such material, the receipt or otherwise of the representation against the order of detention becomes a disputed question of fact which cannot be determined by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The grounds of detention have been fully handed over to the petitioner, observed the court.
It said “the grounds of detention bear reference to as many as seven FIRs and it seems that whole of the material relating to those FIRs has been furnished to the petitioner.”
It added “in the grounds of detention, reference has been made to as many as 07 FIRs lodged against the petitioner from the year 2013 to 2023 which clearly indicate the past conduct and the propensity of the petitioner to indulge in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.”
