38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, January 12, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

J&K HC Dismissed Habeas Corpus Writ Petition Of Bar Council President Miyan Qayoom

By LawStreet News Network      08 February, 2020 10:02 PM      0 Comments
J&K HC Dismissed Habeas Corpus Writ Petition Of Bar Council President Miyan Qayoom

On February 8, 2020 Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) High Court (HC) Justice Tashi Rabstan dismissed Habeas Corpus writ by Mr Miyan Abdul Qayoom, President of J&K High Court Bar Association, Srinagar. Qayoom was detained under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, 2002 on August 5, 2019, to prevent him from creating public disorder. 

Petitioner challenged District Magistrate (DM), Srinagar, order dated August 7, 2019 which placed him under preventive detention. He stating in his petition that DM without application of mind and without going through the grounds of detention had issued such order. He is under preventive detention from August 5, 2019, when central government repealed Article 370, which provides special status to Jammu & Kashmir

The HC said that it cannot question administrative action. Since preventive detention is not punitive action. As preventive detention is an action to be taken to prevent any harmful activity from happening. As action has not taken place, it will be tough for executives to present any solid proof. This type of actions does not require proof because if judiciary sets parameters for such type of actions then executive will not be able to perform their duty properly and in freely. The court also quoted Greek thinker Sophocles and said, Law can never be enforced unless fear supports them.

Having said that, subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to detain a person or not is not open to objective assessment by a court. A court is not a proper forum to scrutinize the merits of administrative decision to detain a person, Justice Rabstan said in his judgment.

Grounds of detention according to petitioner, are vague, indefinite, uncertain, and baseless as also ambiguous and lack in material particulars and essential details, which has rendered the detenue, unable to make an effective representation against his detention to appropriate authority, the petitioners had submitted.

The court held that the grounds of detentions are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. Even a single act is sufficient to justify preventive detention.

 

Author Satwik Sharma

 



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

wrong-bail-orders-alone-without-evidence-of-corruption-cannot-justify-removal-of-judicial-officer-sc
Trending Judiciary
Wrong Bail Orders Alone, Without Evidence of Corruption, Cannot Justify Removal of Judicial Officer: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that wrong bail orders alone cannot justify removal of a judicial officer without proof of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous considerations.

06 January, 2026 07:43 PM
divorced-muslim-woman-can-seek-maintenance-under-crpc-even-after-receiving-amount-under-muslim-women-protection-act-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Under CrPC Even After Receiving Amount Under Muslim Women Protection Act: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court holds that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even after receiving amounts under the 1986 Act.

06 January, 2026 08:19 PM
delhi-hc-full-bench-settles-bsf-seniority-dispute-rule-of-continuous-regular-appointment-prevails
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Full Bench Settles BSF Seniority Dispute; Rule of ‘Continuous Regular Appointment’ Prevails [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court Full Bench rules BSF seniority is based on date of continuous regular appointment, rejecting claims for antedated seniority due to delayed joining.

06 January, 2026 08:45 PM
borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email