SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has upheld a preventive detention order against Haseena Akhter, who is allegedly associated with the banned outfit Dukhtaran-e-Millat.
Justice M.A Chowdhary affirmed the detention order, citing Akhtar’s long history of anti-national activities and the potential threat she posed to the state’s security. This justified her detention under the Public Safety Act.
“Having glanced at the grounds of detention, it is clear that right from the tender age of the detainee, she was involved in anti-national activities. Her affiliation with different banned organisations like ‘Dukhtaran-e-Millat,’ Hizbul Mujahideen, Tehreek-ul-Mujahideen, and Lashkar-e-Toiba, was a big threat to the security of the State. The detainee has not only been found to provide logistic support to the terrorists, but weapons/ammunition were also recovered from her possession. Moreover, she was found involved in lobbing a petrol bomb upon a CRPF bunker at Sopore,” the court said.
Haseena Akhter had approached the Court challenging the detention order issued by District Magistrate Baramulla on April 7, 2022, under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. The detention order was based on allegations that Akhtar was involved in activities prejudicial to the security of the State, including affiliation with various militant organisations, providing logistical support to terrorists, and engaging in subversive activities.
The petitioner argued that the detention order was illegal and violated constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards. It was claimed that the grounds of detention were vague, and the petitioner was not provided with the necessary materials for an effective defense.
However, the respondent defended the detention order, stating that it was preventive in nature and necessary to prevent the petitioner from engaging in anti-national activities that posed a threat to public order and security.
After reviewing the detention record, the bench observed that the petitioner’s affiliation with banned organizations and her involvement in various anti-national activities were a potential threat to the security of the State. The court highlighted that preventive detention aims to prevent a person from engaging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State or public order.
It emphasised that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is crucial in such cases, and as long as the authority’s satisfaction is based on grounds that a rational person can consider connected with the objectives to be prevented, the court cannot substitute its opinion.
The court reasoned that for determining the accuracy of the facts mentioned in the grounds of detention, evidence may have to be taken by the courts, which is not the policy of preventive detention law.
“Those who are responsible for national security or for maintaining public order must be the sole judges of what the national security, public order, or security of the State requires,” the bench underscored.
Based on these observations, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s claims lacked merit and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the preventive detention order.
