Jailed J&K MP Engineer Rashid Can Take Oath: Anti-Terror Law Doesn’t Bar It

The news broke last week that Engineer Rashid, a jailed J&K MP, is eligible to take his oath of office. This is despite being detained under the stringent Public Safety Act (PSA). This decision has sparked debate, with some raising concerns about the implications while others argue it’s a matter of upholding the law.

What is the PSA and how does it apply to Engineer Rashid?

The PSA is a controversial law that allows authorities to detain individuals without trial for up to two years. It has been criticized for being used to silence dissent and target political opponents. Engineer Rashid, a prominent critic of the Indian government’s policies in Kashmir, has been detained under the PSA since 2019.

The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that the PSA does not automatically disqualify someone from holding public office. In the case of Dhananjay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015), the court stated that a person can take oath even if they are detained under a preventive detention law like the PSA. This ruling forms the basis for Engineer Rashid’s eligibility.

So why the controversy?

The situation is complex. Some argue that allowing a detained individual to take oath undermines the very purpose of the PSA, which aims to prevent disruptive activities. They believe it sets a dangerous precedent. Others maintain that denying Engineer Rashid his right to take oath, even if he remains in detention, would be a violation of the principles of democracy.

The real challenge lies in balancing security concerns with upholding democratic norms. While the PSA is a powerful tool that can be used effectively, its misuse can lead to serious consequences. The case of Engineer Rashid presents a unique opportunity to reflect on the law’s impact and its role in a democratic society.

The final decision rests with the authorities. They must weigh the implications of this decision carefully and act in a manner that respects both the rule of law and the principles of justice.

This situation highlights the delicate balance between security and democracy, and raises important questions about the use of preventative detention laws in a democratic society. It’s crucial to have a nuanced discussion about these issues, rather than resorting to emotional reactions.