{"id":321035,"date":"2024-04-30T11:00:53","date_gmt":"2024-04-30T05:30:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=321035"},"modified":"2024-05-03T11:16:02","modified_gmt":"2024-05-03T05:46:02","slug":"lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"J&amp;K Administration must pay compensation of 5 lakhs to a lawyer detained in preventive custody for more than 1080 days: J&amp;K and Ladakh HC"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court:<\/span> While considering the instant matter wherein the petitioner challenged his detention by District Magistrate Pulwama acting under Section 8 of the J&amp;K Public Safety Act, 1978 and subsequently approved by the Govt. of UT of J&amp;K, the Bench of <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Rahul Bharti, J.*<\/span>, preventive detention of the petitioner is mala fide and illegal, <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">ab origine<\/span> and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">ab intra<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court pointed out that the petitioner had been made to suffer loss of his liberty for a cumulative period of more than 1080 days of preventive custody covered under the span of four detention orders in row from 2019 to March 2024. Therefore, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of rupees 5 Lakhs payable by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Background and Legal Trajectory:<\/span> The petitioner is an advocate of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and also in the Sardar Court Srinagar. It was alleged that joined Jamti-e-Islami upon being influenced by the written literature of Ab. Qadi Awda of Egypt. It was alleged that the petitioner had been acting as legal advisor and press and publication chief of banned Jamati-e-Islami party. It was further alleged that the petitioner became a hard-core element propagating Islam in his own way to achieve ulterior motives including instigating the youth to carry out the activities which are said to be prejudicial to the integrity of the State and was able to manage joining of various innocent youth into militancy.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The petitioner&#8217;s first detention in March 2019 under J&amp;K Public Security Act, 1978 was challenged before the High Court and was set aside in July 2019. However, instead of getting released from jail, the petitioner was slapped with another detention order within 6 days from the order of quashment of the first detention order.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The petitioner questioned the second detention, and it was set aside by the High Court in March 2020. After a lapse of just three months of quashment of second preventive detention order, the petitioner again came to be booked for preventive detention by an Order dated 29-06-2020. The third preventive detention was also set aside by the High Court in February 2021.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Then in 2022, once again the process for the preventive detention of the petitioner was set into effect by the SSP Pulwama by forwarding a dossier District Magistrate Pulwama citing the basis that if the petitioner was left to enjoyment of his fundamental right to personal liberty, then he would be indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and therefore a preventive detention was warranted. District Magistrate Pulwama came to exhibit his subjective satisfaction, thereby passing a detention order 4<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> time in a row.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Court&#8217;s Assessment:<\/span> Perusing the challenge to the 4<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> detention order, Court noted that the respondents did not file any challenge in letters patent appeal vis-&agrave;-vis quashment of the first 3 detention order. Therefore, it meant that the references and reasoning used by the writ court in all its three judgments held its ground.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court further noted that while pressing for detaining the petitioner for the fourth time, SSP and District Magistrate, Pulwama did not even consider what the High Court had pointed out while quashing the 3<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">rd<\/span> detention order in 2021. The High Court in 2021 held in very clear terms that the petitioner&#8217;s 3<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">rd<\/span> detention rested on stale grounds.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court strictly observed that if three previous judgments of the Court quashing preventive detention of the petitioner were not spared a passing glance and an application of mind, by the SSP Pulwama, the District Magistrate Pulwama and Govt. of UT of J&amp;K, then how can it be claimed by the said three authorities that the 4<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> preventive detention of the petitioner is an outcome of an open and fair mindset acting upon changed factual scenario. &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Suffice to say that preventive detention of the petitioner is afflicted surely with malice in law, if not malice in fact, at the end of the entire chain of the preventive detention proposing, making and confirming authorities<\/span>&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court further pointed out that the very fact that dossier by the SPP and the detention order by the District Magistrate are of same date, i.e.,14-09-2022 is a testament to the fact that preventive detention of the petitioner was an outcome of a pre-conceived mindset and that was to somehow keep chained the petitioner to jail bars even if without any conviction in a criminal case. &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Thus, the petitioner was being fated to suffer preventive detention by his past, allegedly reckoned by the detention proposing and detention order making authorities, to be a recurring condemnation against the petitioner<\/span>.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Examining the grounds of the 4<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> detention order, the Court noted that respondents attempted to debunk the three judgments of the High Court whereby the preventive detention of the petitioner on all three occasions were quashed not on a technical ground but on the merits of the case holding the detention unjustified. &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Upon scratching below the surface, there is nothing in the name of reasonableness and rationality to be found in the impugned grounds of detention and in the impugned order of the detention<\/span>&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court strictly noted that in continuing with the preventive detention of the petitioner, the SSP and District Magistrate are acting as law unto themselves having extra constitutional authority at their respective disposal in the matter of targeting the petitioner with repeated preventive detention custody, unmindful of fact that the orders are failing before the Court of law every time to sustain the said preventive detention custody.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the impugned preventive detention order is inherently bad as the purported basis of its passing is related to the security of state <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">whereas the Jammu &amp; Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 nowhere provides &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Security of State<\/span>&#8221; to be a basis under Section 8 of the 1978 Act as a ground for the Govt., and\/or Divisional Commissioner\/District Magistrate to inflict a preventive detention<\/span> upon a person by reference to his alleged reported activities to be prejudicial to the Security of the State.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"> With the afore-stated assessment, the Court pointed out that Latest preventive detention of the petitioner is compounding the illegality attending the breach and violation of the petitioner&#8217;s fundamental right to personal liberty with impunity and that entitles him to compensation. Relying on <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/20S4u2PB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1983) 4 SCC 141<\/a>, The Court found the instant case to be a fit case to exercise Court&#8217;s constitutional jurisdiction to extend constitutional remedy for grant of compensation in favour of the petitioner for illegal infringement of his fundamental right to personal liberty.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Advocate Mohd. Ali Lone v. Govt. of J&amp;K, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/1ppp805z\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2024 SCC OnLine J&#038;K 267<\/a>, decided on 03-04-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment by Justice Rahul Bharti<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For petitioner-<\/span> ZA Qureshi, Sr Advocate with Advocate Rihana<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For respondents-<\/span> Zahid Qais Noor, GA<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">The Court noted that petitioner had been made to suffer loss of his liberty for a cumulative period of more than 1080 days of preventive custody covered under the span of four detention orders in row from 2019 to March 2024.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":318485,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2728,68100,68102,46667,68103,3117,68101,3475],"class_list":["post-321035","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-compensation","tag-illegal-preventive-detention","tag-integrity-of-the-nation","tag-jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court","tag-lawyer-detained","tag-Preventive_Detention","tag-security-of-state","tag-Terrorism"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>J&amp;K and Ladakh HC grants Rs 5 Lakhs compensation to advocate for unfair preventive detention<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"J&amp;K and Ladakh HC noted that the lawyer had been made to suffer loss of his liberty for a cumulative period of more than 1080 days.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J&amp;K Administration must pay compensation of 5 lakhs to a lawyer detained in preventive custody for more than 1080 days: J&amp;K and Ladakh HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"J&amp;K and Ladakh HC noted that the lawyer had been made to suffer loss of his liberty for a cumulative period of more than 1080 days.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-04-30T05:30:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-05-03T05:46:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"J&amp;K Administration must pay compensation of 5 lakhs to a lawyer detained in preventive custody for more than 1080 days: J&amp;K and Ladakh HC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"J&K and Ladakh HC grants Rs 5 Lakhs compensation to advocate for unfair preventive detention\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-04-30T05:30:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-05-03T05:46:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"J&K and Ladakh HC noted that the lawyer had been made to suffer loss of his liberty for a cumulative period of more than 1080 days.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J&amp;K Administration must pay compensation of 5 lakhs to a lawyer detained in preventive custody for more than 1080 days: J&amp;K and Ladakh HC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"J&K and Ladakh HC grants Rs 5 Lakhs compensation to advocate for unfair preventive detention","description":"J&K and Ladakh HC noted that the lawyer had been made to suffer loss of his liberty for a cumulative period of more than 1080 days.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J&K Administration must pay compensation of 5 lakhs to a lawyer detained in preventive custody for more than 1080 days: J&K and Ladakh HC","og_description":"J&K and Ladakh HC noted that the lawyer had been made to suffer loss of his liberty for a cumulative period of more than 1080 days.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-04-30T05:30:53+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-05-03T05:46:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"J&amp;K Administration must pay compensation of 5 lakhs to a lawyer detained in preventive custody for more than 1080 days: J&amp;K and Ladakh HC","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/","name":"J&K and Ladakh HC grants Rs 5 Lakhs compensation to advocate for unfair preventive detention","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2024-04-30T05:30:53+00:00","dateModified":"2024-05-03T05:46:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"J&K and Ladakh HC noted that the lawyer had been made to suffer loss of his liberty for a cumulative period of more than 1080 days.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/30\/lawyer-detained-compensation-5lakhs-preventive-detention-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J&amp;K Administration must pay compensation of 5 lakhs to a lawyer detained in preventive custody for more than 1080 days: J&amp;K and Ladakh HC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":298347,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/fundamentalist-muslim-cannot-equated-extremist-preventive-detention-jammu-and-kashmir-ladakh-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":321035,"position":0},"title":"A fundamentalist Muslim cannot be equated with an extremist; J&#038;K and Ladakh HC observes","author":"Sucheta","date":"August 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court also observed that fundamentalism pertaining to a Muslim is merely someone who believes in the fundamentals of Islam and the same cannot have a negative bearing.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"jammu and kashmir and ladakh high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":311354,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":321035,"position":1},"title":"J&amp;K and Ladakh HC quashes the detention order issued in 2022 based on an FIR registered against a detenue in 2004","author":"Editor","date":"January 12, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The petitioner was detained in June 2022 based on a FIR registered against him in 2004. However, the petitioner had already been acquitted from the charges levied against him in 2004.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"jammu and kashmir and ladakh high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273151,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/06\/jk-and-ladakh-hc-number-of-acts-not-to-be-determined-for-detention-of-an-individual-but-impact-of-the-acts-preventive-detention\/","url_meta":{"origin":321035,"position":2},"title":"J&#038;K and Ladakh HC| Number of acts not to be determined for detention of an individual, but impact of the act(s) [Preventive Detention]","author":"Editor","date":"September 6, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J. dismissed a petition which was filed assailing the detention order in terms of Section (3) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (\u2018NDPS Act\u2019) issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir (\u2018Detaining\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":331577,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/23\/jk-high-court-cautions-authorities-against-misuse-of-preventive-detention-powers-at-cost-of-mocking-the-constitution-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":321035,"position":3},"title":"J&amp;K High Court cautions authorities against misusing Preventive Detention powers at cost of mocking the Constitution","author":"Ritu","date":"September 23, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThere is no iota of doubt that the preventive detention of the petitioner is a sheer abuse of jurisdiction of preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324947,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/24\/district-magistrate-detention-order-impugned-non-application-of-mind-petition-allowed\/","url_meta":{"origin":321035,"position":4},"title":"\u201cOnce a statute provides for detention under specific contingency, a person can\u2019t be detained under another contingency\u201d: J&amp;K and Ladakh HC","author":"Editor","date":"June 24, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court pointed out that the petitioner could have been detained only under Section 8 (1)(a-1) of the PSA and not under Section 8(1)(a) of the PSA, as both the clauses (a) and (a-1) operate in different fields","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":302263,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/25\/preventive-detention-unreasonable-delay-representation-violation-constitution-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":321035,"position":5},"title":"[Preventive Detention] | Unreasonably belated consideration of representation is equivalent to non-compliance of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution: J&amp;K and Ladakh HC","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 25, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The detenue specifically alleged that he made a representation against impugned detention order, however, the same was not considered by the detaining authority.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"jammu and kashmir and ladakh high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321035","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=321035"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321035\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/318485"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=321035"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=321035"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=321035"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}