It is definitely most refreshing, most reassuring and so also most reinvigorating to note that while according paramount importance to the sanctity of preserving personal liberty of a citizen, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Nazir Ahmad Ronga vs UT of J&K & Ors in HCP No.267/2024 that was reserved on 11.02.2025 and then finally pronounced on 17.03.2025 has minced just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that, “The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the grounds of detention are vague, ambiguous and lacking in material particulars.” It also added that the allegations against Ronga were not even supported by any intelligence report, so as to lend “some sort of credence” to them. It must be disclosed here that this most commendable judgment was passed on a habeas corpus petition that had been filed through Ronga’s wife Bilquees Ronga.
It must be disclosed here that Ronga was detained by Jammu and Kashmir police in middle of night on July 11, 2024. He was arrested from his residence at Nishat in Srinagar and was initially lodged at the Nishat police station after which he was shifted to Kot Bhalwal jail in Jammu. When he was arrested, his family was not informed of his arrest under the Public Safety Act. The arrival of police team as well as detention of Ronga was captured on CCTV footage. It must be noted that Ronga has served as President of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association at Srinagar several times. A detention order under the Public Safety Act had been passed by the Srinagar District Magistrate on July 10 to prevent Ronga from “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance and security of the State.”
By all accounts, it is indubitably clear that the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar very rightly found the grounds of detention to be ambitious and vague. It also rightly ruled that Ronga could not have made an effective and suitable representation against the order of detention. It was thus very rightly concluded by the Bench that his valuable constitutional right available under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India stood infringed.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Dhar of J&K&L High Court at Srinagar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The petitioner has challenged order No. DMS/PSA/16/2024 dated 10.07.2024 issued by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby he has been detained under Section 8(4) of the J&K Public Safety Act with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating in detail stating that, “The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid detention order on the grounds that there has been non-application of mind on the part of respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order of detention as there is similarity in the language of the police dossier and the grounds of detention formulated by the detaining authority. It has been further contended that earlier detention order passed against the petitioner was revoked by the respondents in the year 2019 and thereafter there has been no fresh activity attributed to the petitioner. Thus, according to the petitioner the impugned order of detention is unconstitutional and illegal. It has also been contended that the allegations made in the grounds of detention against the petitioner with regard to his association with APHC(M) group is absolutely baseless and the alleged activities attributed to the petitioner pertaining to the years 1999, 2008 and 2010 are also baseless. It has been claimed that the petitioner was an elected Municipal Councillor and thereafter he has also served as a Government Advocate from 1987 to 1989. Thus, according to the petitioner, he is a peace loving and law abiding citizen who has never committed any offence, much less an offence against the State. It has been submitted that the petitioner throughout his life condemned terrorism and extremism through his lectures and speeches but the respondents have slapped the order of preventive detention against him without any basis. It has also been claimed by the petitioner that in his capacity as acting Chairman of the Bar Association, he had made it sure that objectionable clauses of the constitution of High Court Bar Association are amended and for this purpose, a general body meeting of the Association was called and its consent to this effect was also obtained and now the constitution of the Bar Association has been brought in tune with the Advocates Act.”
To be sure, the Bench then further discloses in para 3 that, “It has been further contended that there is no mention of any specific activity of the petitioner in the grounds of detention relating to the recent past that could have influenced the Detaining Authority to pass the impugned order of detention. It has also been claimed that the petitioner has all along throughout his life opposed the ideology of Advocate Mr. Mian Abdul Qayoom and has contested elections against him. It has been submitted that the petitioner has always preached against the policy of separatists and that he has been taken into custody on flimsy grounds. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has always preached that the Hurriyat leaders are selling bone and blood of Kashmiri people and his said statement has received wide publicity in the local newspapers regarding which he has also received death threats but in spite of this, the respondent authorities have slapped impugned order of detention against the petitioner.”
Further, the Bench then lays bare in para 4 stating that, “It has been contended that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention and that the said order has been passed on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It has been further contended that the petitioner was not informed about the time period within which he has to make a representation against the impugned order of detention. According to the petitioner, the grounds of detention are vague, indefinite, uncertain and baseless lacking in material particulars which has prevented him from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. It has also been contended that the petitioner has never been booked in any FIR nor any anti-national activity has been attributed to him throughout his career, as such, it was not open to the respondents to pass the impugned order of detention against him. It has been further contended that there has been total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention and that safeguards available to the petitioner in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India have not been adhered to in the present case. It has also been contended that whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the petitioner.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 19 that, “From the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, it is clear that the grounds of detention must be precise, unambiguous containing specific and precise particulars so that a detenue is able to furnish an effective and precise response to the allegations. If the allegations made in the grounds of detention are ambiguous lacking in material particulars, it would not be possible for a detenue to make a specific response and in such circumstances the response of the detenue would be a bare denial. It is also clear that the allegations made in the grounds of detention should be based upon some material, may be intelligence inputs or any other material accompanying police dossier that would substantiate the said allegations. It is further clear from the analysis of the law on the subject as discussed hereinbefore that if the allegations made against the detenue in the grounds of detention or the police dossier are vague and ambiguous and bereft of any supporting material, the passing of detention order by the detaining authority in such circumstances would amount to non-application of mind on its part.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 23 that, “It is clear from the aforesaid allegations levelled in the grounds of detention that the same are lacking in material particulars. If we minutely examine the alleged activities of the petitioner post his release from preventive detention in the year 2020, if comes to the fore that the detaining authority has not identified the person with whom the petitioner has recently held secret meetings nor has it identified the persons who are like minded members of the High Court Bar Association with the help of whom the petitioner intends to achieve his anti-national goals. The identity of the secessionists and terrorists lodged in different jails with whom the petitioner has met to carry forward his ideology of terrorism and secessionism is also not discernible from the contents of the grounds of detention. Even the members with whom the petitioner attended the meeting with a view to prevent normalcy to prevail in District Srinagar are not identified in the grounds of detention. The particulars of the offensive activities including the places and the dates on which the petitioner has indulged in such activities are also missing in the grounds of detention.”
Most rationally, the Bench points out in para 25 that, “The manner in which the grounds of detention have been formulated by the detaining authority clearly reflects non-application of mind on its part. The conclusion and the grounds appear to be of general nature without any specific details about the particular role played by the petitioner. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya’s case (supra), something more than mere grounds of detention is required which will enable the detenue to make an effective representation against the detention order. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, having regard to the nature of vague allegations made in the grounds of detention, the only thing the petitioner could have said in his representation was to deny his involvement without making any specific response to the allegations. In such circumstances and in view of the ratio laid down in Ameena Begum’s case (supra) the impugned order of detention, becomes vulnerable to interference by this Court.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 29 that, “In the present case, the detaining authority has not referred to any intelligence reports nor reference to such intelligence reports is there in the police dossier. In fact, the detention record produced before this Court does not contain any intelligence report that would go on to show that the petitioner has continued to hold the same ideology for which he was detained in the year 2019. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Mian Abdul Qayoom’s case (supra) is clearly not applicable to the facts of the present case as there is no material on record in the shape of intelligence reports or otherwise to connect the past activities of the petitioner with the imperative need of his preventive detention.”
Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most forthrightly and as a corollary, the Bench then encapsulates in para 30 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the grounds of detention are vague, ambiguous and lacking in material particulars, on the basis of which it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective and suitable representation against the impugned order of detention. Thus, his valuable constitutional right available under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India stands infringed. Besides this, there has been total non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority in passing the impugned order of detention, as the allegations made in the grounds of detention, particularly those relating to his recent activities, are vague and ambiguous. The same are not even supported by any material in the form of intelligence report etc, so as to lend some sort of credence to these allegations. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority, in these circumstances, has become a casualty. On this ground also, the impugned order of detention is not sustainable in law.”
Resultantly, the Bench then further directs in para 31 that, “For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case.”
Finally, the Bench concludes by holding in para 32 that, “The record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.”
Author Bio
