On Tuesday, the Supreme Court asked the Center and the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) administration whether they intend to continue to detain former Prime Minister Mehbooba Mufti, asking them to explain the maximum length of time a person can remain in pre-trial detention. in protective custody. the law.
A higher court headed by Judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul was hearing a corpus petition filed by Mufti’s daughter, Iltija, challenging her mother’s detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), which allows a person to is detained without trial for a maximum of one year for acting to the detriment of the maintenance of public order and for two years for acting against the security of the country.
“They should address us on two issues: one, what is the maximum period during which a person can be detained and two, what is their proposal and how long they propose that the detention continue,” said the court, which was also made up of Judge Hrishikesh. Roy told Attorney General Tushar Mehta, representing the Center and the administration of the Union territory.
Mufti was among hundreds of people detained in 2019 to avoid protests against the Center’s decision to strip J&K of its special status by repealing Article 370 of the Constitution and dividing the region into two Union territories.
Iltija alleged that her mother’s continued detention was due to her refusal to sign a general bond stating that, should she be released, she would not make any comment, make no speech, or attend any public assembly related to the changes. introduced into Jammu and Kashmir. .
Mehta told the court that Mufti had been detained on the grounds that her conduct could lead to public order problems, allowing the detention of a person for a period of one year under the PSA. “Considering the reason for the detention, can you detain it for more than a year?” Judge Kaul asked, asking Mehta to respond at the next hearing.
Mehta informed the court that the J&K management had filed a counter-affidavit on the matter.
The counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate (DM), Srinagar, indicated that the arrest warrant was based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and that the sufficiency or appropriateness of the material cannot be a matter of judicial review.
Iltija argued that Mufti’s arrest was based on a dossier compiled by the Srinagar Police Superintendent that is full of personal comments against her and was in bad taste.
.
