J&K as state not in existence, so no PSA order for Its safety, security lies: HC

Srinagar, June 20: It cannot lie at the disposal of any side to still say and understand that the State of J&K is in existence for whose safety and security detention order under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 can be passed, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has said.  

“State of Jammu & Kashmir has ceased to be an entity for the Govt. as well as for the citizens of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and it cannot lie at the disposal of any side to still say and understand that the State of Jammu & Kashmir is in existence for whose safety and security detention order under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 can be passed,” said a bench of Justice Rahul Bharti while quashing a detention order against a 22-year-old youth from Pulwama.
“In the present case, when the petitioner (22-year-old youth) came to be read over the order of detention, the petitioner was made to understand that he was being detained in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State obviously of meaning State of Jammu & Kashmir,” the court said while quashing the PSA detention order passed by District Magistrate Pulwama against the youth on 23 June last year.
It also directed the government to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation for invasion of fundamental right of the petitioner of his personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.  
“The Court considers and reckons that this is a fit case to award compensation of an amount of Rs. 2 lac payable in faovur of the petitioner by the respondents for invasion of the fundamental right of the petitioner of his personal liberty as guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Bench said underlining that a fundamental right under the Constitution of India is a guaranteed right to a citizen of India and, therefore, its invasion and breach in an unlawful manner and on frivolous/sham basis cannot be a pass-over for a constitutional court whenever coming across with a case registered by an aggrieved citizen complaining about the injury caused to his/her fundamental right by a wrongful action at the end of the Govt./its authorities/officials,” the court said.
The release from illegal custody, the court said, is no doubt restores the fundamental right to personal liberty to an aggrieved person but it does earn him any succour for the injury received by him and to his person.
For this, the court said, the only remedy and relief that can be extended by a constitutional court is a compensation under public law remedy which “in the present case the petitioner is entitled to have from this Court and that is why this Court is awarding compensation of an amount of Rs. 2 lacs in favour of the petitioner payable by the respondents.’