Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, June 5: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has delivered a series of significant judgments in preventive detention matters under the J&K Public Safety Act, quashing three detention orders while upholding two others after examining whether the constitutional and statutory safeguards were complied with by the detaining authorities.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dealing with five separate habeas corpus petitions, reiterated that preventive detention, being an exceptional measure affecting personal liberty, must be supported by specific, proximate and material particulars.
The High Court held that vague and general allegations, non-supply of vital material and unexplained delay in deciding representation of a detenue can vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
In Tahir Ahmad Kumar’s case, the High Court quashed the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Budgam, observing that the grounds of detention were vague, cryptic and lacking in material particulars. The High Court noted that the allegations did not mention the places, identity of alleged terrorists or the period during which the detenue was alleged to have provided aid.
It further found that the dossier, a vital document forming the basis of subjective satisfaction, had not been supplied to the detenue. The petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to release him forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Similarly, in Adil Nabi Shah’s case, the High Court set aside the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Pulwama. The High Court held that non-mentioning of the detenue’s previous PSA detention and release was an important omission reflecting non-application of mind. It further observed that the fresh allegations were vague as the grounds did not disclose the places, identity of terrorists or the period of alleged logistic support.
The High Court held that vagueness strikes at the root of subjective satisfaction and ordered his release, subject to his not being required in any other case.
In Aabid Ashraf Ganie’s case, the High Court quashed the detention order after finding unexplained delay of about two months in deciding his representation. The Court observed that the representation had been received by the Home Department in the third week of February 2025 but was decided only on April 1, 2025, without any explanation.
Relying on the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court held that failure to decide a detenue’s representation expeditiously strikes at a valuable right under the PSA and constitutional safeguards.
However, the Court refused to interfere with the detention of Tawqeer Ahmad Mir, holding that the material supplied to him and the grounds of detention disclosed sufficient basis for preventive custody. The Court observed that after his release on bail, he was allegedly bound down on two occasions in February and April 2025, yet continued activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
The Court also held that past conduct, including activities during juvenility, could be considered for assessing background and propensity, though such acts alone could not form the sole basis of detention. The petition was dismissed.
In another matter concerning Ikhlas Shafi Ganie, the Court upheld the PSA detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag. The Court noted that although ordinarily non-specific allegations may not sustain detention, the record showed that the detenue had been furnished intelligence reports containing specific inputs regarding activities prejudicial to the security of the State/UT.
It also found that the entire material, including intelligence reports, had been supplied and his representation had been considered. The petition was dismissed as being without merit.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
