Why Jammu & Kashmir High Court ordered J&K administration to pay ₹5 lakh compensation to lawyer

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ordered the Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) administration to pay a compensation of ₹5 lakh to a lawyer kept under continuous preventive detention since 2019 [Advocate Ali Mohammad Lone alias Zahid vs Government of J&K]..Justice Rahul Bharti noted that despite the High Court having quashed three detention orders against the petitioner Ali Mohammad Lone under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), the authorities went ahead with a fresh detention order without challenging the earlier judgments by filing appeal.While quashing the fourth detention order against Lone and ordering his release, the Court said,“A quote by Laura Miller ‘The past is a very determined ghost, haunting every chance it gets’ seems to be, though unsaid, but the underlying basis of the mindset of the Sr. Superintendent of Police, (SSP in short), Pulwama and the purported subjective satisfaction of the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Pulwama passed on even to the Govt. in the matter of subjecting the petitioner to suffer fourth time preventive detention in row following each other in the fashion as passing of baton amongst relay race runners.".Considered a separatist by the State, Lone (61), a practicing lawyer and a former member of the banned Jamaat-e-Islami, was first detained under PSA in 2019. After the detention order was quashed by the High Court, his detention was continued under a fresh order. Though the High Court quashed the second detention order in 2020, Lone was booked once again under the PSA.In 2021, even the third detention order was quashed by the High Court. Though none of the decisions were taken in appeal by the J&K administration, Lone continued to remain in prison and was booked the fourth time in 2022 by District Magistrate (DM) Pulwama on the recommendation of SSP Pulwama..Taking a strong view against the "mechanical" passing of consecutive detention orders, Justice Bharti remarked that the earlier three judgments quashing Lone’s preventive detention had not been spared even a passing glance by the authorities including the Government of J&K.The Court said Lone’s preventive detention was “an outcome of a preconceived mindset” and aimed to somehow keep him chained to jail bars even without any conviction in a criminal case.“Preventive detention of the petitioner is afflicted surely with malice in law, if not malice in fact, at the end of the entire chain of the preventive detention proposing, making and confirming authorities,” it said..On the latest detention order, the Court observed that the DM and SSP of Pulwama district were “literally meaning to debunk the three judgments of this court whereby the preventive detention of the petitioner on all three occasions were quashed not on a technical ground but on the merits of the case holding the detention unjustified”.Upon scratching below the surface, the Court said there was nothing in the name of reasonableness and rationality in the latest order of detention. .While censuring the two district authorities, the Court said they meant to be the law unto themselves with an “extra constitutional authority” at their respective disposal.“This court can not be diplomatic to avoid observing that if left to the whims and fancies of the SSP Pulwama and the respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Pulwama then the judgment of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh quashing a given preventive detention of a person is of no interest to them and same very person by repeat of the pretext can be made to suffer cyclic preventive detentions to outnumber judgments quashing the given preventive detention,” the Court said..Calling Lone’s detention illegal and mala fide, the Court said he has been made to suffer loss of his liberty for more than 1080 days due to the four consecutive detention orders. It, therefore, concluded that his fundamental right to personal liberty was violated with impunity and that entails him to compensation.“Although the petitioner has claimed compensation of rupees twenty five lacs but this court holds that a compensation of rupees five lacs would meet the ends of justice and therefore besides holding and declaring the preventive detention of the petitioner illegal, also holds the petitioner entitled to compensation of rupees five lacs payable by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.”.Senior Advocate ZA Qureshi and Advocate Rehana represented the petitioner.Government Advocate Zahid Qais Noor represented the State.[Read Judgment]