J&K HC: Fundamentalist Muslim can’t be equated to an extremist or separatist

New Delhi: Jammu and Kashmir High Court observed that a fundamentalist Muslim cannot be equated to an extremist or a separatist, Live Law reported on Tuesday.

Justice Atul Sreedharan made this remark while hearing a petition challenging the preventive detention of a 22-year-old Muslim alleging that he has agreed to engage as Over ground worker of The Resistance Front, a supposed LeT outfit, and has become a hardcore fundamentalist, the website further said.

The detention order was issued by the District Magistrate of Pulwama and it was challenged in the Court by the detunu`s father, the report said.

Justice Atul Sreedharan observed that a fundamentalist Muslim is someone who strongly believes and pursues the fundamentals of the Islamic faith and there is no negativity attached to it. He also added that it has no negative bearing on the personality and it is distinct from an extremist or a separatist.

The Court, according to the Live Law, also noted the use of the phrase ‘’Fundamentalist ideology” by the District Magistrate and said that the charged ground is vague and has been used lucidly without proper understanding.

The bench agreed to the petitioner`s contention that the grounds of detention were not specific, based on speculations and said it did not provide details that the nature of the alleged act was detrimental to the nation. Henceforth, the detention order was quashed and the detunu was set free.

So far as Petitioner’s case is concerned, Court said, ”Fundamentalist an adherent of fundamentalism‟ pertaining to a Muslim who is a fundamentalist is merely someone who believes in the fundamentals of Islam and steadfastly pursues the same. It cannot have a negative bearing on his personality. The same is as a fundamentalist Muslim cannot be equated with an extremist or a separatist. agencies

Therefore, said ground also is vague and has been used lucidly without proper understanding.”

Another argument presented by the petitioner was that the grounds of detention were vague, non-specific, and based on speculations and conjectures.

The court agreed with this contention and noted that the grounds failed to provide specific details regarding the date and nature of the alleged acts prejudicial to the nation.

Moreover, the court found that there was no statement from any witness making direct allegations against the detenu.In view of the same, the bench quashed the detention order and directed that detenu be set at liberty forthwith.