A Division Bench of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh while dealing with an Appeal filed against the order of dismissal of Habeas Corpus petition has held that the use of the term “activities prejudicial to the security of state” in the detention order cannot be held to be illegal or non-application of mind by the detaining authority for the reason that post Reorganisation Act, 2019 the state has been  Converted into a Union Territory. 

The appellant was relying upon a judgment passed by the Ld Single Judge of the Court in a Case titled “Arif Aijaz Shahri Vs UT of J&K and Ors” wherein the Hon’ble Court haq quashed a detention order on the ground that there has been a non-application of mind on part of detaining authority in so far as the alleged activities of the detenue have been reflected to be prejudicial to the Security of State and not the Union Territory of J&K.

While taking recourse to Article 12 of the Constitution of India and Section
3 (58) of General Clauses Act, 1897 the court observed that there is no doubt that the definition of State as contained in 3 (58) of General Clauses Act,1897 includes Union Territory. The term, “all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India” comprises States and Union Territories. The term State includes the Government of each State that is the State Executive and legislature of each State that is the State legislatures. It is pertinent to mention that it includes Union Territories as well. Thus the court didn’t subscribe to the view taken by the Ld Single Judge.

The court held that there is no error in the order of detention in so far as the alleged activities of the detenue have been reflected to be prejudicial to the Security of State and not the Union Territory of J&K. The petition was dismissed accordingly.