The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently upheld the preventive detention of a woman accused of having had a love affair with slain Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist Musaib Lakhvi.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal found no procedural infirmity with the detention order. It further held that there was no merit in the woman's claims that the reasons given for her preventive detention were vague.The Court added that the scope of its interference in such matters was limited.
"It is settled law that while exercising the power of judicial review, the constitutional courts cannot sit as a court of appeal over the subjective satisfaction derived by the Detaining Authority," the order said.The case pertained to the preventive detention of one Shaista Maqbool, a resident of Bandipora, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA).
The detention order was issued by the District Magistrate, Bandipora on December 4, 2023, on allegations that Maqbool was working as an overground worker for the LeT (a banned terrorist organisation).The authorities also claimed that she had maintained a romantic relationship with slain LeT terrorist Musaib Lakhvi.They added that she was in contact with local and foreign militants and that her activities were prejudicial to the security of Jammu and Kashmir.
Maqbool, however, maintained that the preventive detention order was illegal. She claimed that the detention order was based on vague and unspecific grounds, that her representation in the matter was not properly considered, and that no direct evidence established her alleged involvement in terrorist activities.
A single-judge Bench of the High Court dismissed her plea on May 23 this year. Aggrieved, she filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. Among other arguments, her counsel also contended that the detaining authority had not explained why ordinary criminal laws were not enough to deal with her alleged conduct.
On November 6, the High Court's Division Bench dismissed her appeal.It noted that the woman was accused of carrying out criminal activities in a secretive manner, and that it may not be possible to get concrete evidence to establish the same.It, therefore, found force in the detaining authority's stance that the ordinary criminal law is not sufficient to tackle such anti-national activities.
Follow us
