Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 13: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of a Pulwama resident under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, observing that detention under the PSA is justified where the alleged activities of a person are prejudicial to the security of the State.
Justice M A Chowdhary dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by Jahangir Ahmad Parray, son of Gh Nabi Parray, resident of Gulshanpora, Tral, Pulwama, who had challenged Detention Order No. 31/DMP/PSA/25 dated 07.05.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
The petitioner, through counsel Advocate M Ashraf Wani, sought quashment of the detention order on the grounds that constitutional and statutory safeguards had not been followed, the grounds of detention were vague, relevant material had not been supplied, his representation had not been considered, and the detention was based on stale grounds.
Opposing the plea, the respondents, represented by Government Advocate Furqan Yaqub Sofi, submitted that preventive detention is not punitive but preventive in nature, aimed at stopping a person from continuing activities prejudicial to the security of the State and public order.
The court noted from the detention record that the detenue had been involved in FIR No. 03/2020 registered at Police Station Awantipora under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the UA(P) Act, and FIR No. 04/2021 registered at Police Station Tral under Section 506 IPC and Sections 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UA(P) Act.
As per the grounds of detention, the petitioner was alleged to have worked as an OGW of banned terrorist organisations Hizbul Mujahideen and Jaish-e-Mohammad, providing assistance such as shelter, food, clothing and vital information to terrorists. It was further alleged that after being released on bail, he continued to indulge in anti-national and subversive activities.
The court also recorded that the detenue had been apprehended on several occasions in 2023 and 2024 under preventive provisions for allegedly disturbing peace and tranquility in the area. The detaining authority, after considering his activities prejudicial to the security of the State, passed the preventive detention order.
The High Court held that the scope of judicial review in preventive detention matters is limited and that the court cannot substitute its own opinion for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority when the material has a rational connection with the object sought to be prevented.
The court further rejected the plea of stale grounds, observing that the petitioner was alleged to have continued his activities from 2020 to 2024 and remained connected with pro-Pakistan terrorist organisations like HM and JeM.
Holding that no illegality or impropriety was found in the impugned detention order, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the PSA detention order.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
