What is the 1978 Public Safety Act ?

Jammu and Kashmir, the Public Safety Act (PSA) is used to combat militancy and insurgency, but it has drawn criticism for its arbitrary detention of civilians.

Introduction

In Jammu and Kashmir, the Public Safety Act (PSA) is used to combat militancy and insurgency, but it has drawn criticism for its arbitrary detention of civilians. Due to the frequent violations of human rights, Amnesty International refers to it as a “Lawless law.” The act’s provisions, disputes, and important rulings are examined in this article.

A brief history of the Public Safety Act of 1978

The Public Safety Act, which was initially passed to stop timber smuggling in Jammu and Kashmir, has frequently been used to detain people suspected of stirring up public outrage and causing intercommunal strife. The expansion of the act due to the increase in terrorism and insurgency in the area has raised concerns about its arbitrary nature and potential for human rights violations.

Read Also:- Today’s second IPL match pits MI against PBKS.

---

The Public Safety Act’s Section 8

Authorities may place people in custody under Section 8 of the PSA if they are thought to be promoting hatred or inciting violence against others on the basis of their religion, race, caste, community, or region. It also includes those who prepare or encourage the use of force or engage in criminal behaviour that could result in a sentence of seven years or longer in prison. Section 8(2) of the PSA gives the District Magistrates and Divisional Commissioners the authority to order detention.

What is the Public Safety Act’s main source of controversy?

The Public Safety Act is regarded as a contentious and draconian law despite having the dual objectives of ensuring public safety and preventing insurgency. The Act gives administrative authorities unlimited authority to hold anyone believed to be a threat to the public interest, which could cause issues. Although the Act’s Section 13(1) mandates that authorities inform detainees of the reasons for their detention, Section 13(2) gives authorities the right to withhold information if doing so would be detrimental to the public interest.

This provision violates the detainee’s fundamental right to represent themselves, consult with a lawyer, and file a bail application. As a result, the application and implementation of the Act may be abused, raising concerns about its draconian nature. Furthermore, Section 22 of the Act grants officials immunity from any order issued under its provisions, implying that the official acted in good faith. Last year, the Act attracted national attention after political leaders, including opposition and separatist leaders, were detained under its provisions following the repeal of Article 370, prompting criticism of the government’s use of the Act to quell unrest in the valley.

Is the Public Safety Act’s reference to Article 22 constitutional?

There has been debate surrounding the Public Safety Act, particularly in relation to Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. A person who is detained or arrested must be informed of the reasons for their detention, have the right to an attorney’s consultation, and appear before a magistrate within 24 hours, according to Article 22 of the Constitution. These provisions offer protection from arbitrary arrests and detentions as well as a check on the executive’s power.

These safeguards, however, do not apply to the Public Safety Act, as Article 22 subclause (3) states that they do not apply “to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.” The constitutionality of the provisions of the Public Safety Act has been contested, but the Act is considered constitutional because it falls under the purview of “certain cases” outlined in Article 22.

Under the Public Safety Act, how long can a person be detained?

The maximum period of detention is 3 months under Section 18(1) of the Public Safety Act, but it can be extended to 12 months for threats to public order, 12 months for smuggling of timber, and 2 years for activities prejudicial to the security of the State. The government must refer the case to an Advisory Board within 4 weeks of the detention order being issued, and the Advisory Board must issue its opinion within 8 weeks of the detention order being issued.

The detention orders may be cancelled.

A detention order may be revoked or modified by the government at any time, even if it contradicts the direction of the authorised officers, in accordance with Section 19 of the Public Safety Act. However, Section 19(2) enables the authorities to detain the same person once more on the same grounds if the revocation was brought about by procedural errors or illegality. Due to this, the same person could be detained and harassed repeatedly under the Act’s provisions.

Defences available to detainees

A person can use constitutional protections to challenge a detention order even though doing so under the Public Safety Act can be challenging. A writ petition for habeas corpus may be submitted to the Supreme Court under Article 32 or to the High Court under Article 226 in this manner. The challenge’s reach, though, is restricted to infractions or irregularities of procedure. The detention order may be revoked by the High Court if it determines that there was a miscarriage of justice and a flagrant violation of a person’s liberty that led to their illegal detention.

However, aside from instances where the court can clearly see that the detaining authority has made clear errors, the High Court generally refrains from reviewing the “subjective satisfaction” formed by the administration regarding the reason for detention and does not conduct a substantive review of the detention’s merits.

Conclusion

Although the Public Safety Act is a special law that gives the executive a lot of power, it is necessary to strike a balance between personal and national interests. National interest is of the utmost importance, and the administration must ensure it for a smoothly operating country, according to the country’s founding fathers. In cases of conflict, national interest must take precedence, and reasonable limitations on fundamental rights may be imposed to protect the public. The PSA may come across as intrusive, but it is necessary in cases of abnormal circumstances like the current state of affairs in Jammu and Kashmir, where militancy has caused chaos and the deaths of uninvolved parties. The PSA grants the executive exclusive authority to uphold law and order in such circumstances.