Judicial Endorsement of Arbitrary Detention in IIOJK: Courts Fail to Uphold Rights

Legal Cover for Political Suppression

The High Court of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) has upheld the preventive detention of Rehmatullah, a resident of Dessa Bhata, Doda, under the controversial Public Safety Act (PSA). By dismissing the habeas corpus petition challenging his incarceration, the court has reinforced concerns regarding the increasing normalisation of arbitrary detentions in the region. Despite notable procedural lapses and the absence of credible evidence, judicial authority was exercised to legitimise a questionable administrative order. This case reflects a troubling trend in IIOJK, where courts appear more inclined to validate executive actions than to safeguard fundamental rights. In an already volatile and heavily securitised environment, such verdicts further diminish the credibility of the judiciary as an impartial and independent institution.

Subjective Justification Overrides Legal Principles

The court’s reliance on the District Magistrate’s “subjective satisfaction” and prior First Information Reports (FIRs) to justify the detention raises significant concerns about declining judicial standards. Instead of applying rigorous legal scrutiny, the court appeared to accept administrative reasoning at face value. This overdependence on discretionary assessments rather than concrete evidence fosters a legal climate where presumption replaces proof. The recurring use of ambiguous justifications such as an alleged threat to public order has become a routine mechanism to suppress dissent without adherence to procedural fairness.

Public Safety Act: From Security Measure to Political Instrument

Originally designed to maintain public order, the PSA has become a widely criticised tool of coercion. In practical terms, it is frequently invoked to detain political workers, students, rights defenders, and civilians in IIOJK without formal charge or trial. Under its provisions, individuals may be held for up to two years based solely on unverified intelligence inputs. Several international human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have consistently declared the PSA incompatible with universally accepted legal norms. In IIOJK, the law has transitioned from a security framework to a systematic instrument of political control used to marginalise leadership and disrupt democratic engagement.

Disregard for Human Rights Commitments

The upholding of Rehmatullah’s detention illustrates a broader institutional disregard for fundamental human rights enshrined in both national and international legal frameworks. The principles of due process, presumption of innocence, and protection against arbitrary detention are essential components of any rule-based legal system. Pakistan and several global institutions have consistently raised these concerns in platforms such as the United Nations Human Rights Council. However, in the context of IIOJK, the sustained application of the PSA and similar laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) signals a deliberate policy of legalised suppression. The judiciary’s passive stance raises critical questions regarding its role whether it serves as an enforcer of justice or merely reinforces the will of the state.

Judicial Oversight and Institutional Silence

Courts are expected to function as checks on the unrestrained exercise of executive power. In conflict zones, this role becomes even more vital. Yet, in IIOJK, the judiciary’s consistent reluctance to challenge flawed administrative orders points to an erosion of judicial independence. Such institutional silence not only violates constitutional rights but also contributes to the growing alienation of the local population. For many in the region, courts are no longer viewed as neutral protectors of civil liberties but as extensions of an oppressive state apparatus.

Regional Consequences of Judicial Endorsement

The implications of these legal developments are profound. They contribute to an atmosphere of fear, where the threat of detention looms large, particularly for the youth. By legitimising questionable practices, courts effectively provide impunity to state authorities. This not only damages the justice system but also obstructs any genuine political reconciliation. Moreover, the continued criminalisation of dissent in IIOJK has broader regional implications. Suppressing lawful political expression while denying judicial redress undermines peace-building efforts. Without institutional accountability and legal safeguards, durable peace in South Asia remains elusive.

Law as a Tool of Repression: The Decline of Judicial Safeguards in IIOJK

The verdict in Rehmatullah’s case is not merely a legal ruling; it is a reflection of a systemic problem wherein judicial mechanisms are employed to legitimise political repression. When courts uphold detentions without due process, public faith in justice erodes, and authoritarian tendencies gain strength. The judiciary must reaffirm its commitment to justice, fairness, and constitutional integrity. In the absence of these safeguards, the law ceases to be a shield for the vulnerable and instead becomes a weapon of coercion. For the people of IIOJK, such decisions are not isolated; they are emblematic of a deeply entrenched crisis of justice under occupation.