Detention Sans Conviction, or Crime? What NA Ronga’s Case Reveals About J&K PSA

As NA Ronga’s own portfolio of work suggests, this tragic tale of preventive detention in Kashmir is not uncommon.

As NA Ronga’s own portfolio of work suggests, this tragic tale of preventive detention in Jammu and Kashmir is not uncommon.

(Photo: The Quint)

"I vividly recall the fearless and selfless dedication with which my father championed the causes of the voiceless from all walks of life, particularly those unjustly subjected to the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), without any malafide intention," advocate Umair Ronga recently told The Quint. He added,

"He just wanted to help those people live with dignity."

It's been exactly a month since Umair's 70-year-old father NA Ronga – who's an advocate at the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association (HCBA) – was detained under the same law.

The PSA is a preventive detention legislation that allows the State to detain an individual for as long as two years (per PSA order) before a crime has been committed.

The Allegations Against NA Ronga

As part of their grounds for detention, the detaining authority has dubbed NA Ronga a 'direct threat to the security of the state'. He is presently being held at Jammu’s Kot Bhalwal prison.

The authority has further alleged (among other things) that:

1. Ronga was trying to revive the HCBA in order 'to give terrorists and secessionists a platform.' Additionally, the detaining authority claimed that the bar association’s 'adopted constitution specifies that it will assist the terrorist movement till the goal of UT of J&K’s separation from the union of India is accomplished (sic)'.

2. Under the influence of Molvi Umar Farooq, Ronga allegedly joined All Parties Hurriyat Conference or APHC(M), and subsequently became the organisation’s legal advisor.

3. In 1999, Ronga and Mian Abdul Qayoom (ex-president of the bar association who was arrested in June this year in connection with a murder case from 2020) purportedly 'led the charge in uniting 11 secessionist parties under the Tehreek-i-Hurriyat-e-Kashmir banner', an organisation that has since been declared an unlawful association.

4. In 2008 and 2010, he supposedly worked with secessionist groups to create and implement 'programs and calendars' amid agitations, resulting in 'widespread violence which in all possibility was a direct threat to security of the state'.

5. In 2019, post abrogation of Article 370, he allegedly advocated for numerous agitations.

NA Ronga’s Defence

Ronga’s lawyer has, however, vehemently refuted these allegations. A habeas corpus petition, filed by his wife in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, argues:

1. Ronga never gave platform to any terrorist/secessionist, he was not an architect of the HCBA constitution (nor did he participate in the drafting process), and there is no provision in the constitution 'which says that the members of the bar Association shall support any terrorist movement or organisation'.

2. He is not affiliated to APHC(M). He is only a legal advisor (being a lawyer) of Umer Farooq – and not that of the whole group.

3. He has never been associated with Qayoom. On the contrary, he has fought bar association elections against him.

4. Ronga has been so vocal in his criticism of Hurriyat leaders that his critical views have been circulated in local daily newspapers.

5. The past activities attributed to him are 'completely baseless and false'. The petition argues that if there had been any truth in them, there would have been FIRs against him to show for it. However, 'there is no reasonable material available to the detaining authority…in the shape of any FIR or complaint…'

6. Sure, he was detained under the PSA at the time of abrogation (2019), but the order was withdrawn unconditionally by the State itself.

7. Finally, the petition states that Ronga has behaved as a professional advocate all his life, and the allegations against him are 'baseless, concocted and malicious'.

His son Umair told The Quint, "Over the past four decades, my father has ardently fought over 20,000 such cases."

However, he added,

'Today, I am profoundly disheartened to observe that not a single senior lawyer possesses the courage to advocate on his behalf, paralysed by fear despite the clear baselessness, unreasonableness, and fabrication of the allegations against him."

"(But) I salute my father's unparalleled courage and unwavering commitment to upholding the majesty of the law, demonstrating his steadfast faith in the judiciary and the rule of law,' he said.

The Story of J&K PSA

As NA Ronga’s own portfolio of work suggests, however, this tragic tale of preventive detention in Jammu and Kashmir is not uncommon. "The PSA is a draconian law. It has been misused and abused for many years," former Supreme Court Justice Madan Lokur told The Quint.

"It is now being used by the government in a punitive manner and not as a preventive law. It is high time the parliament repeals the law and, if necessary, comes out with something better."

Justice Madan Lokur

According to this report, in 2023 alone, 450 PSA cases were filed in J&K. While this figure is lower than 2022’s 649 cases, what it betrays is simple travesty:

Every year hundreds of people are detained for prolonged periods, sans a conviction, sans even a chargesheet.

Frequently, the detention also takes place in a cell far away from the detenue’s home. Sometimes in a different city (as in Ronga’s case), and sometimes in a different part of the country altogether.

Speaking to The Quint in 2022, human rights lawyer Srimoyee Ghosh had explained: "(Under the PSA) there is no police complaint, no investigation, no chargesheet, no judge, no judicial scrutiny. It is just based on police reports, intelligence reports, often very secret information, vague FIRs and the grounds are often not provided to the detainee."

While a detenue can challenge the grounds of their detention before an advisory board, in cases where the grounds are not adequately made available, it becomes virtually impossible for them to do so.

Additionally, the PSA does not entitle a detenue to representation by a lawyer. "Prohibiting a lawyer from representing a detenu is terrible," Justice Lokur noted, adding: "The person is detained on the prognosis that he is likely to commit a crime. He is deprived of his liberty on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. To deny legal representation to him under such circumstances is more than draconian."

Further, the former judge pointed out that such prohibition disables the Advisory Board from giving a fair and impartial opinion in a matter of personal liberty. "In short, it's a terrible provision violating the basic right of liberty and justice," Justice Lokur told The Quint.

Subjective Satisfaction & Advisory Boards

The detaining authority in PSA cases are either district commissioners or district magistrates, and it is on their subjective satisfaction that such orders are passed. The Advisory Board, meanwhile, is headed by a chairman, who is either a sitting or a former high court judge, and two other members "who are, or have been, or are qualified to be" high court judges.

In April this year, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court had quashed a preventive detention order against advocate Ali Mohammad Lone – his fourth consecutive PSA order – noting that the case was "an outcome of a pre-conceived mindset and that was to somehow keep chained the petitioner to jail bars even if without any conviction in a criminal case." The court also imposed a compensation of Rs 5 lakh on the authorities for violating Lone's fundamental right to personal liberty.

According to Justice Lokur, "Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is being abused in respect of several preventive detentions. That is why you need a strong advisory board, consisting of high court judges."

It is, after all, the Advisory Boards which are mandated to critically scrutinise and review the grounds of detention. The constitutional courts can only hear such cases in the form of habeas corpus petitions, although the Jammu and Kashmir High Court did recently note that it is not entirely barred from looking at the grounds.

"The subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority though cannot be critically examined by this Court as it does not function as appellate court (in PSA matters), yet the Court is not barred from looking into the grounds of the detention and prima facie satisfy(ing) itself as to whether grounds had any correlation with the purpose for which the detention order has been passed.'

Jammu and Kashmir High Court (Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Lone Vs UT of J&K)

The Road Ahead

NA Ronga’s high court plea, meanwhile, is slated to be heard on 18 September. He would, by then, have completed over two months in detention. As an interim measure, his family seeks for him to be shifted to a jail closer home, so that the septuagenarian may continue receiving medical treatment for his blood pressure and stomach-related ailments.

In the petition, the family has also asked for Rs 60 lakh as compensation from the authorities for "illegally detaining" Ronga, "inflicting torture on him", and "violating his fundamental right of life and liberty". But even if the court is inclined to grant him relief, there is no way of knowing if the road ahead will not be rocky.

An Amnesty International report from 2011 suggests that J&K authorities "consistently thwart" the high court’s release orders, by re-detaining an individual under an array of pretexts. This was illustrated as recently as in Ali Mohammad Lone’s case, where every time the court set aside one detention order, he was slapped with another. His ordeal had stretched on for nearly five years.

Yet, Umair remains hopeful.

"I am confident that my father will be released soon, helped on by the prayers of thousands who stand with him," he said.

(With inputs from The Hindu, The Wire, The Indian Express and LiveLaw.)