J&K High Court upholds detention of Mian Qayoom | KNO

‘Detenue is at liberty to make representation to concerned authorities’
J&K High Court upholds detention of Mian Qayoom | KNO

Kashmir News Observer (KNO)

Srinagar, May 28 (KNO): A double bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court on Thursday upheld detention of Kashmir High Court Bar Association president Mian Qayoom under the controversial Public Safety Act(PSA) by dismissing his appeal against single bench order. The bench comprising Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul and Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, however, suggested that detenue is at liberty to make a representation to the concerned authorities to take advantage of the stand taken by Advocate General that “such ideology cannot be confined or limited to time to qualify it to be called stale or fresh or proximate, unless, of course, the person concerned declares and establishes by conduct and expression that he has shunned the ideology”. “In light of the above legally rightful and sound argument taken by the learned Advocate General, we leave it to the detenue to decide whether he would wish to take advantage of the stand of the learned Advocate General and make a representation to the concerned authorities to abide by it. Simultaneously, we also leave it to the discretion of the Government and of the concerned/competent authority(ies) to take a decision in terms of the relevant provision(s) of the JK PSA on any such representation, if made, by the detenue,” reads the order, available with the news agency—Kashmir News Observer (KNO) Qayoom was detained on August 5 last year when BJP-led central government abrogated J&K’s special status and bifurcated into two Union Territories. Qayoom is currently lodged at Tihar Jail and is suffering from many ailments. Z.A. Shah, senior counsel appearing for Mian Qayoom submitted that health condition of the detenue has deteriorated and the Government has got the power to revoke, amend or alter the detention order and even to release the detenues on parole. The lawyers for the petitioner had challenged the detention order on the grounds that the detenue was not supplied the material documents on the basis of which the detaining authority had attained the requisite satisfaction. They also submitted that the FIRs relied upon by the detaining authority to form his opinion pertain to the years 2008 and 2010, and that the allegations contained in these FIRs are stale in nature—(KNO)