Land grabbing not prejudicial to maintenance of 'Public Order' under Public Safety Act: J&K High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently ruled that land grabbing does not fall within the purview of the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as per the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 [Ravinder Kumar Gupta v Union Territory of J&K & Ors.].

Single-judge Justice Rajnesh Oswal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in KK Saravana Babu v State of Tamil Nadu, to hold that land grabbing cannot be construed to affect public order as defined under Section 8 (3)(b) of the Act.

"In view of the decision of Apex Court, the argument that land grabbing would fall within the meaning of “mischief” loses its force. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the alleged activities as mentioned above, even if are considered as true, still the said activities do not fall within the purview of the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in 8 (3)(b) of the Act," the Court stated.

The Court also stressed that in a democracy such as India, the personal liberty of the individual cannot be curtailed except according to the procedure established by law.

"If the law provides for curtailment of personal liberty under certain contingencies/conditions, then such conditions/contingencies must exist, then only, the personal liberty of an individual can be curtailed and that too according to the procedure prescribed by the law. The perusal of detention order reveals that in all the FIRs, the allegations against the petitioner are with regard to the commission of offences, which do not fall within the realm of “public order” as defined by section 8(3) of the Act as there are no allegations against the petitioner regarding his activities affecting public at large," the Court observed in its judgment.

The Court was considering a petition challenging a detention order passed by District Magistrate, Jammu whereby the petitioner was detained under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

The detention order was challenged on the ground that the activities considered to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by the prosecution, do not fall within the purview of the Section 8(3)(b) Act.

Opposing the plea, Additional Advocate General Amit Gupa submitted that the petitioner was involved in numerous criminal activities which are considered prejudicial to maintenance of public order with 21 FIRs have registered against him since 2006.

It was argued that the petitioner is a notorious land grabber and and because of such criminal activities, there was threat to the maintenance of public order, that necessitated the issuance of order of detention against the petitioner.

On going through the provisions of the Act, the materials on record and the facts of the case, High Court said that the allegations against the petitioner may amount to law and order issue but in no manner can be said to have disturbed "public order" as defined under the Act.

The Court further said that the perusal of detention order revealed that in all the FIRs, the allegations against the petitioner were with regard to the commission of offences, which do not fall within the realm of "public order" as defined by Section 8(3) of the Act as there are no allegations against the petitioner regarding his activities' affecting the public at large.

Therefore, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order.

The petitioner was represented by advocate Sakal Bhushan.

[Read Judgment]