Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reserved On: 19.02.2026 vs Ut Of J&K Through on 26 February, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
HCP No. 94/2025
Reserved on: 19.02.2026
Pronounced on: 26.02.2026
Uploaded on: 26.02.2026.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced-Full
Manzoor Ahmed @ Furqan, Aged-35 Yrs. .....Appellant/petitioner(s)
S/O Ghulam Mohd. Naik
R/O Dalwah, Tehsil Gool, District Ramban
Through :- Mr. T.R. Wani, Advocate.
v/s
1. UT of J&K through .....Respondent(s)
Comm./Secretary to the Govt. Home
Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. District Magistrate, Ramban
3. Senior Superintendent of Police,
Ramban
4. Superintendent, District Jail, Amphalla,
Jammu.
Through :- Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. Impugned in this petition is an Order of Detention No. 04/PSA/2024
dated 04.08.2024, issued by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Ramban
under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 ( for short ” the PSA”), vide
which petitioner has been detained and lodged in District Jail, Amphalla,
Jammu.
02. 2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
Background facts of the case are that Senior Superintendent of Police,
Ramban vide communication No. CB/DOSSIER/2024/11172, dated 20.07.2024,
submitted a dossier regarding alleged illegal activities of the petitioner and
recommended his detention under PSA.
03. It was alleged that petitioner was a surrendered/released militant on the
rolls of Police Station Gool, who was involved in 12 FIRs viz., FIR No. 54/2002
U/S 307/l21A/RPC, 3 PSSA of P/S Gool, FIR No.100/2002 U/S
364/343/34l/12A/RPC, 7/27/Arms Act of P/S Gool, FIR No. 110/2002 U/S
435/436/l21A/RPC of P/S Gool, FIR No. 52/2006 U/S
364/302/l2lA/RPC,4/25/Arms Act of P/S Gool, FIR No. 64/2006 U/S
302/l2lA/RPC 7/27/Arms Act of P/S Gool, FIR No. 41/2007 U/S
302/l2lA/450/RPC, 7/27/Arms Act of P/S Gool,, FIR No. 42/2007 U/S
302/307/450/121A/RPC, 7/27/Arms Act of P/S Gool, FIR No. 49/2007 U/S
364/302/342/323/34/RPC, 7/27/Arms Act of P/S Gool,, FIR No. 52/2007 U/S
4/5/Explosive Act of P/S Gool, FIR No. 66/2007 U/S 307/121A/RPC 4/5
Explosive Act of P/S Gool, FIR No.72/2007 U/S 302/121A/307/RPC,7/27/ A
Act of P/S Gool and FIR No. 17/2008 U/S 364/302/121A/ RPC 7/27/ Arms Act
of P/S Gool.
04. It was alleged that as per the record of Police Station Gool and
information provided by sister agencies, petitioner had been absconding since
2023 till date. Non-bailable warrants had been issued against him by the High
Court. His search was conducted through officers/officials of Police Station
Gool in the AOR of the Police Station and various sister agencies were also
looking for him. Possible efforts were made to search him but his whereabouts
could not be ascertained. The activities and sudden absconding of the petitioner
were suspicious in sensitive matters. There was a large possibility that
HCP 94/2025 2
2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
petitioner, who was wearing the ranks of HM outfit, being a local well-versed
with the terrain and information regarding militancy history, hideouts etc.,
might provide sensitive information to ANEs, harbour them and motivate youth
of the area to join Jihad to create communal tension. His activities remained
harmful in the past and in the current scenario, he could be highly prejudicial for
peace, prosperity, tranquility, integrity and security of the UT of Jammu and
Kashmir, particularly of Gool area, especially when he was absconding to evade
his arrest.
05. The dossier further alleged that it had been learnt though reliable sources
that petitioner was instigating and provoking general masses of youth of Gool
and its adjoining areas against the Government to disrupt peace and law and
order and he may create communal tension. In this respect, 12 reports came to
be entered in the Daily Dairy Register by SHO, Police Station Gool, the details
whereof are :-
1. DDR No. 20 dated 23-06-2024,
2. DDR No. 12 dated 27-06-2024,
3. DDR No. 20 dated 27-06-2024,
4. DDR No. 16 dated 12-07-2024,
5. DDR No. l8 dated 12-07-2024,
6. DDR No. 05 dated 13-07-2024,
7. DDR No. 10 dated 13-07-2024,
8. DDR No. 06 dated 14-07’2024,
9. DDR No. 08 dated 14-07-2024,
10. DDR No. 05 dated 19-07-2024,
11.DDR No. 06 dated 20-07-2024
12. DDR No. 09 dated 20-07-2024,
06. In the light of aforesaid activities, alleged against the petitioner, SSP
Ramban made a recommendation to the District Administration for his
preventive detention under PSA. It was alleged that, in view of reports of the
DD extracts and his involvement in 12 FIRS, his freedom was harmful for
security, i.e., a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the UT of J&K and
country.
HCP 94/2025 3
07. 2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
On perusal of the aforesaid dossier submitted by SSP Ramban and having
regard to the provisions of PSA, respondent no. 2-District Magistrate Ramban
passed the impugned order.
08. Petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order of detention, inter alia, on
the following grounds:-
a. Because the bare perusal of the order impugned makes it amply
clear that the same has been issued by the respondent no.2 in an
unreasonable, arbitrary and malafide manner. On this ground alone
the order impugned requires to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court.
b. Because the bare perusal of the order impugned makes it amply
clear that the same has been issued by the respondent no.2
casually and mechanically and without proper application of mind to
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. On this
ground also the order impugned requires to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court.
c. Because the grounds of detention are a verbatim copy of the
dossier prepared by the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 2 has miserably failed
to record its subjective satisfaction before passing
the order impugned. The bare perusal of the grounds of detention
and order impugned makes it amply clear that respondent no.2 has
miserably failed to record subjective satisfaction that activities of the
petitioner are harmful against the security and maintenance of public
order in the Gool area. lt is trite law that a detaining authority before
passing an order of detention under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978
is bound to record its independent subjective satisfaction to the
extent that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the
maintenance of the public order. On this ground also the order
impugned requires to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court and
petitioner be set at liberty.
d. Because the grounds of detention, the order of detention and
dossier were not provided to the petitioner within the stipulated
period as prescribed under Section 13 of J & K Public Safety Act,
1978 and moreover the same was neither read over nor explained to
the petitioner in the language which the petitioner understands. lt
needs to mention that petitioner is not in a position to read or
understand English Language and the grounds of detention were
neither explained to him nor made him understand. The respondents
did not supply all the relevant documents/material on which the
respondents had relied their detention while passing the impugned
detention order within the stipulated period enabling the petitioner to
file an effective representation against his detention under the J&K
Public Safety Act, 1978 before the concerned authorities. lt is
worthwhile to mention here that in the grounds of detention, it is
alleged that the petitioner is surrendered/released militant son the
roll of P/S Gool and the activities of the petitioner are harmful against
the security and maintenance if public order in the Gool area. lt is
also alleged that the petitioner is also involved in 12 FlRs the detail
of which is mentioned in the dossier as well as in the grounds of
detention but the record of which has not been provided to the
petitioner. lt is relevant to mention here that out of the 12 FlRsHCP 94/2025 4
mentioned in the dossier, the petitioner has been acquitted in 4 2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
FlRs
bearing FIR No. 5212006,4212007,4912007 and FIR No. 66/2007.
e. Because the respondent no. 2 & 3 has not provided the detail of the
two FlRs bearing No.72/20027 and FIR No. 17/2008 due to which
the petitioner is not in a position to make an effective representation
against his detention. On this ground also the order impugned
requires to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court and petitioner requires
to be released by this Hon’ble Court.
f. Because from perusal of the detention order and grounds of
detention, it has been mentioned by the detaining authority that the
petitioner is evading the arrest since 2023 to till date and non-
bailable warrants has been issued by the Hon’ble High Court against
the petitioner. lt is also alleged by the respondent no. 2 & 3 that the
activities and sudden absconding of the petitioner is suspicious into the sensitive
matters and may provide sensitive information to ANEs or even harbour them. lt
clearly demonstrates that the detention order no. 04/PS A of 2024 dated 04-08-2024
has been passed by detaining authority on assumptions and presumptions without
proper
application of mind, without having any substance, thus requires to be set aside and
petitioner be set at liberty.
g. Because the detaining authority before passing an order of
detention under Public Safety Act, 1978 has to record its subjective
satisfaction based on the material placed before it. The detaining
authority has failed to provide the detail and data to the petitioner,
allegations of which has been made in the grounds of detention and
dossier with regard to the petitioner that petitioner who himself
wearing the ranks of HM outfit, and being local is well versed with
the terrain and other information regarding militants history, hideouts
etc and may provide such sensitive information to ANEs or even
harbour them. It is relevant to mention all these allegations are mere
suspicious and no document proof of his being wearing a rank of HM
outfit has been provided to the petitioner, hence on this ground also
the petitioner requires to be set aside and petitioner be set at liberty.
h. That is also mentioned in the grounds of detention as well as in the
dossier that due to the harmful activities of the petitioner which are
highly prejudicial for the peace, prosperity, tranquility, integrity and
security of the UT of J&K particularly Gool area, in this regard
relevant reports (DDR) have been entered in the Daily Dairy
Register by SHO P/S Gool and a total of 12 Daily Diary reports have
been entered from 23-06-2024 to 20-07-2024, makes it crystal clear
that the police reports relied by the detaining authority speaks
volume of malice and has been prepared by the concerned authority
in a routine/casual/mechanical manner and the matter of fact is that
the petitioner was not provided with these reports due to which the
petitioner is not able to file an effective representation against his
detention under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. That the activity of
the petitioner is prejudicial to public order or in other words disturbs
the public order, there is nothing on record to show that activities of
the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On this
ground also the order impugned requires to be quashed by this
Hon’ble Court and petitioner requires to be released by this Hon’ble
Court.
i. Because the grounds of detention and also in the detention order, it
is alleged that the activities of the petitioner are very harmful againstHCP 94/2025 5
the security and maintenance of public order in the Gool area. 2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
That
the bare perusal of the communication dated 20-07-2024 transpires
that respondent no.3 is seeking the issuance of detention warrant
against the petitioner on the ground that the activities of the
petitioner are very harmful against the security and maintenance of
public order in the Gool area. lt needs to mention that expression “The Security of
the UT”, “Law and Order” and “Public Order” makes
a lot of difference and cannot be used interchangeably. The
detaining authority itself is not clear as to whether the activities of the
petitioner are prejudicial and detrimental to law and order or security
of the state or security of the district or public order. The bare
perusal of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 makes it amply clear that
a person can be detained under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978
either on the ground that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order or security of the state but not on
both the grounds simultaneously. Both grounds cannot be clubbed
together. The expression “Public Order” and “security of State” are
two separate and distinct concepts and have been clearly defined
under Section B of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. Moreover, the
grounds of detention are vague and ambiguous and bound to keep
the petitioner unclear about what really was intended to be conveyed
by the detaining authority. On this ground also the order impugned
requires to be quashed by this Hon’ble court and respondents be
directed to set the petitioner at liberty.
j. That it has been presumed by the detaining authority in ground no.
6 that the petitioner “may” provoke the youth of the area for anti-
national and criminal activities in future cannot be a ground for
detaining a detenu under the Public safety Act, 1978, as law is well
settled that the detaining authority cannot curtail the liberty of a
person mere assumptions and presumptions by making
prediction, hence the detention order requires be quashed by this
Hon’ble Court
k. That no doubt vast powers are conferred upon the respondents to
curtail the personal liberty of the person by exercising the powers
conferred under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 but the
said powers are to be exercised by the respondents in a just, fair
and reasonable manner keeping in view the scope and object of the
Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The respondents
instead of exercising the vast powers conferred upon them under
J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 in a just, fair and reasonable manner
have exercised the same in an arbitrary and malafide manner and
the same has resulted in the infringement of personal liberty of the
petitioner. lt is a fit case for the exercise of extraordinary writ
jurisdiction by this Hon’ble Court as the detention of the petitioner
under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 has resulted in the infringement
of personal liberty of the petitioner and therefore the order impugned
requires to be quashed by this Hon’ble court and further directions
are required to be issued to the respondents to release the petitioner
at the earliest.
l. That in the interest of justice and to meet the ends of justice the order impugned
requires to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court and petitioner be set at liberty at the
earliest. It needs to mention that since the petitioner is in the illegal captivity of the
respondents and the same has resulted in the infringement of the right to personal
liberty of the petitioner, therefore while quashing the order impugned, this Hon’ble
Court requires to direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the
HCP 94/2025 6
infringement of his fundamental right of personal liberty by paying 2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
him
compensation to the tune of Rs. 50, 00000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only).
09. It is contention of the petitioner that on 05.08.2024 he was called by
respondent no. 3-SSP Ramban to Police Station Gool, where he was taken into
custody and thereafter directly taken to District Jail, Amphalla and lodged there.
His wife came to know about his detention under PSA only on 19.03.2025 and,
until then, neither he nor his wife nor any member of his family was aware of
his detention under PSA. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was not allowed
to inform members of his family about his detention by respondent No. 4-
Superintendent, District Jail, Amphalla, Jammu. According to the petitioner, on
19.03.2025, when his counsel appeared in CRAA No. 151/2014 listed in the
High Court, the counsel appearing for the UT of J&K apprised the Court about
his detention under PSA and that he was lodged in District Jail, Amphalla. His
wife, on coming to know about his detention under PSA, approached respondent
no. 4 and obtained the order of detention, grounds of detention and dossier from
the concerned authorities, but no other document mentioned in the grounds of
detention was provided.
10. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for the quashment of
the impugned detention order and for issuance of a mandamus directing the
respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 50.00 lacs.
11. Countervailing the stand of the petitioner, per contra, respondents are
affront with the contention that none of the legal, constitutional, statutory or
fundamental rights of the petitioner has been violated and disputed questions of
fact raised by him cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of writ
jurisdiction.
HCP 94/2025 7
12. 2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
It is contention of the respondents that by virtue of impugned order,
petitioner came to be detained under PSA after due compliance of the statutory
requirements and constitutional guarantees, keeping in mind the object of lawful
preventive detention, which is not punitive but preventive in nature.
13. The impugned order was submitted to the Principle Secretary to
Government, Home Department, J&K for approval. The Home Department,
vide Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1669 of 2024 dated 13.08.2024,
accorded approval to the impugned order and vide letter No. Home-
DTT/500/2023-7176114 dated 20.11.2024, requested District Magistrate,
Ramban for a report regarding non-execution of the detention warrant against
the petitioner. The office of the District Magistrate, vide letter No. ADMR/279
dated 21.11.2024, requested SSP for status of execution of the detention
warrant, and SSP, vide letter No. CB/Misc/25/2052/54 dated 05.03.2025,
reported that petitioner, after strenuous efforts, had been arrested on 04.03.2025
from Dharam area of Gool and lodged at District Jail, Amphalla, Jammu. The
Home Department, vide Government Order No. Home/PB-V 519 of 2025 dated
24.03.2025, directed detention of the petitioner for a period of three months in
the first instance from the date of his detention, which came to be extended from
time to time.
14. It is contended that impugned detention order dated 04.08.2024 was sent
to the petitioner through SSP Ramban with an intimation that he may file a
representation before the Government. The warrant of detention was executed
on 05.03.2025 as petitioner was absconding since 2023. According to the
respondents, the notice of order/grounds of detention along with dossier were
given to the petitioner, read over and explained to him in Urdu and
Guggari/Kashmiri language, which he understood fully.
HCP 94/2025 8
15. Finally, it is the contention of the respondents that since activities of2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
the
petitioner were anti-national and anti-social, prejudicial to the security and
peaceful atmosphere of Gool and its adjoining areas, impugned detention order
was issued against him, in execution whereof he came to be detained.
Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
16. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the detention record.
17. Mr. Wani, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset has argued that
petitioner has been released in all the criminal cases which came to be registered
against him from time to time. The argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner is contrary to the stand of the petitioner in the petition that he has been
acquitted in four FIRs out of 12 registered against him. Be that as it may,
petitioner has not produced copy of any judgment of the competent court to
indicate that he has been acquitted in any case out of the 12 FIRs mentioned in
the dossier and the grounds of detention.
18. Most of the FIRs registered against the petitioner are with respect to very
serious offences of murder under Section 302 RPC, Arms Act and Explosive
Substances Act, etc. In addition to the 12 FIRs against him, 12 reports came to
be entered against the petitioner in the Daily Dairy Register of Police Station
Gool, on the basis of source information that petitioner was instigating and
provoking general masses of Gool and surrounding areas against the
Government to disrupt peace and law and order. Therefore, it is manifest that
detaining authority has derived subjective satisfaction not only on the basis of a
dozen FIRs registered against the petitioner, but also because, he did not desist
from anti-national activities thereafter and a dozen DDRs came to be entered
against him in Police Station Gool.
HCP 94/2025 9
19. 2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
It is by far crystallized now that even a single organized activity may be
sufficient to sustain an order of detention. However, in the present case, as
noted, it is not one FIR on the basis of which detaining authority has derived
subjective satisfaction, but there are as many as a dozen FIRs registered against
the petitioner under very serious offences of murder, Explosive Substances Act
and Arms Act, which failed to deter him from indulging in similar activities. It
was on this basis that detaining authority has come to the conclusion that normal
law of land was not sufficient to prevent him from indulging in activities
prejudicial to the National security.
20. Contention of the petitioner that allegations reflected in the grounds of
detention are vague and based on assumptions and presumptions of the
detaining authority is misconceived, because if detaining authority, on the basis
of the dossier and the material placed before it, is satisfied that normal law of
land has failed to prevent the detenue from indulging in anti-national activities,
it is within its right to take recourse to the provisions of Public Safety Act.
21. The very concept of maintenance of public order, within the meaning of
Section 8 PSA is preventive in nature, i.e., to prevent a person from indulging in
anti-national activities. It is not preventive. Section 8 PSA, for the facility of
reference, is extracted below:-
8. Detention of certain persons.
(1)The Government may-
(a)if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing
him from acting in any manner prejudicial to
(i) the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order; or
(ii) [Omitted]
(a-1) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing
him from-
HCP 94/2025 10
(i)smuggling [timber, or liquor]; or 2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
(ii) abetting the smuggling of [timber, or liquor]: or
(iii)engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled
timber, or
(iv)dealing the smuggled timber otherwise than by engaging in
transporting or concealing or keeping in smuggled [timber, or
liquor]: or
(v)harbouring persons engaged in smuggling of timber or abetting
the smuggling of [timber, or liquor]; or
(b)if satisfied with respect of such person who is-
(i)a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act; 1946, or
(ii)a person residing in the area of the State under the occupation of
Pakistanthat with a view to regulating his continued presence in the State or with a
view to making arrangements for his expulsion from the State, it is
necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained.
(2)Any of the following officers, namely
(i)Divisional Commissioners,
(ii)District Magistrate,
may, if satisfied as provided in sub-clause (i) and (ii) of clause (a) or of
sub-section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-section.
(3)For the purposes of sub-section (1)
(a)[ Omitted.]
(b)”acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order” means-
(i)promoting, propagating, or attempting to create, feelings of
enmity or hatred or disharmony on ground of religion, race, caste,
community, or region;
(ii)making preparations for using, or attempting to use, or using, or
instigating, inciting, provoking or otherwise, abetting the use of
force where such preparation, using, attempting, instigating,
inciting, provoking or abetting, disturbs or is likely to disturb
public order;
(iii)attempting to commit, or committing, or instigating, provoking
or otherwise abetting the commission of, mischief within the
meaning of section 425 of the Ranbir Penal Code where the
commission of such mischief disturbs, or is likely to disturb public
order;
(iv)attempting to commit, or committing or instigating, inciting,
provoking or otherwise abetting the commission of an offenceHCP 94/2025 11
2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment of
a term extending to seven years or more, where the commission of
such offence disturbs, or is likely to disturb public order;
(c)[ “smuggling” in relation to timber or liquor means possessing or
carrying of illicit timber or liquor and includes any act which will render
the timber or liquor liable to confiscation under the Jammu and Kashmir
Forest Act, Samvat, 1987 or under the Jammu and Kashmir Excise Act,
1958, as the case may be,]
(d)[“timber” means timber of Fir, Kail, Chiror Deodar tree whether in
logs or cut up in pieces but does not include firewood.]
(e) “Liquor” includes all alcoholic beverages including beer.
(4)When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in
sub-section (2) he shall forthwith report the fact to the Government
together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such
other particulars as in his opinion have a bearing on the matter, and no
such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the
making thereof unless in the meantime it has been approved by the
Government.”
22. From a plain reading of sub-section 1 of Section 8 PSA, it is manifest
that Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to
prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or
maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing
that such a person be detained.
23. Section 8(3) PSA enumerates various prejudicial activities that would fall
within the mischief of “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order”. It includes within its fold prejudicial activities in the nature of
promoting, propagating or attempting to create, feelings of enmity or hatred or
disharmony on the ground of religion, race, community or region or the
activities of making preparations for using or attempting to use or using or
instigating, inciting, provoking or otherwise abetting the use of force where
HCP 94/2025 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
such preparation, using, attempting, instigating, inciting, provoking or abetting,
disturbs or is likely to disturb public order. “Acting in any manner, which is
prejudicial to maintenance to public order”, also consists of attempting to
commit or committing or instigating, inciting, provoking or otherwise abetting
the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or
imprisonment of a term extending to seven years or more where the commission
of such offence disturbs, or is likely to disturb public order.
24. The detaining authority, in terms of sub section 4 of Section 8 PSA, is
obliged to report the fact to the Government together with the grounds on which
the order has been made including other particulars those in his opinion have a
bearing on the matter, and it is provided that no such order shall remain in force
for more than twelve days after making thereof, unless in the interregnum, it has
been approved by the Government.
25. In the present case, the detaining authority forwarded a copy of the
impugned detention order to the Government, Home Department, J&K, for
approval, and the Government, vide Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1669
of 2024 dated 13.08.2024, accorded approval as envisaged under Section 8(4) of
PSA. It is evident that immediately after issuance of the impugned order, the
detaining authority made an endorsement and reported the matter to the
Government, and the Department of Home accorded approval to the impugned
detention order. It is thus manifest that mandatory provisions of PSA have been
strictly adhered to by the detaining authority and the Government.
26. The next ground urged by the petitioner is that grounds of detention, the
detention order and dossier were not furnished to him within the stipulated
period prescribed under Section 13 PSA and were neither read over nor
HCP 94/2025 13
explained to him in the language understood by him, thereby preventing 2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
him
from making an effective representation against his detention.
27. There is no dispute to the settled position of law that right of
representation against a detention order is a facet of fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, and if this right is
transgressed, the detention stands vitiated.
28. Section 13 PSA provides that when a person is detained pursuant to a
detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but
ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances, for reasons
to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention,
communicate to him, in a language understandable to him, the grounds on
which the order has been made and afford him the earliest opportunity to make a
representation against the detention order.
29. It is indeed a settled position of law that “communication” as envisaged
under Section 13 PSA means bringing home to the detenue effective knowledge
of facts and grounds on which detention order is made. The grounds of
detention must be read over and explained to the detenue in a language fully
understood by him and in a script which he can read, so as to satisfy the
requirement of law.
30. A perusal of the detention record would reveal that impugned detention
order was passed by the detaining authority on 04.08.2024 and was executed on
05.03.2025. According to the detaining authority, the petitioner/detentue had
been absconding since 2023 and, after strenuous efforts, he could be arrested
only on 04.03.2025 from Dharam area of Gool. The record further shows that
upon execution of the impugned order, 327 leaves of documents including
notice of detention/grounds of detention along with dossier, were furnished to
HCP 94/2025 14
the petitioner. Same were read over and explained to him in Urdu 2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
and
Guggari/Kashmir language, which he fully understood and he put his signatures
in acknowledgement that these documents were supplied and were read over
and explained to him. In addition, petitioner was informed of his right to make
representation to the Government and the detaining authority against his
detention, if he so desired. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have also
taken the stand that all the relevant documents/material were provided to the
petitioner and that his signatures were obtained by the detaining authority in
acknowledgment of receipt. It has been specifically stated that documents were
read over and explained to him in his language, which he understood, and that
he was informed about his right to make a representation. The petitioner has not
filed any rejoinder to refute the stand of the respondents that relevant material
was furnished to him, it was read over and explained to him in his language, and
he was informed about his constitutional right to make representation. Since
respondents, in their counter affidavit, have controverted allegations of the
petitioner that material was not supplied, it was not read over and explained to
him in his language, and he was not informed of his right to make an effective
representation, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to rebut the stand of the
respondents-detaining authority by filing a rejoinder, which he has failed to do.
Therefore, stand of the respondents in this respect remains unrebutted. It implies
that respondents have scrupulously adhered to the statutory and constitutional
obligations on their part.
31. Another ground urged by the petitioner is that grounds of detention are a
verbatim copy of the dossier submitted by respondent no. 3 and respondent no.
2-Detaining Authority has failed to record independent subjective satisfaction
that his alleged activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The
HCP 94/2025 15
2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is legally flawed, as this Court,
in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot scrutinize the merits or demerits of the
administrative decision to detain a person.
32. It is exclusive domain of the administration to maintain public peace and
tranquility and to ensure security of the UT. The subjective satisfaction of
detaining authority, particularly when ordinary law of the land has not proved
sufficient to deter him from indulging in anti-national activities, is not open to
objective assessment of this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
33. The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot act as a court
of appeal to find fault with the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
It has no jurisdiction or power to substitute its satisfaction with that of the
detaining authority or to decide whether satisfaction arrived at by the detaining
authority was reasonable and whether, in the circumstances of the case, a
particular person can be detained or not.
34. The contention of the petitioner that impugned order is based on
assumptions of the detaining authority that he may provoke youth of the area
into anti-national and criminal activities is also misconceived. It is settled in law
that power of preventive detention is not exercised as a measure of punishment.
It is preventive in nature. It may or may not relate to a criminal offence or
registration of an FIR. It is precautionary in nature and can be exercised on
reasonable apprehension and anticipation. The basis of detention is the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority on a reasonable likelihood of
the detenue acting in a manner similar to his past activities, which may prove
prejudicial to the security of the State/UT, and detention order is passed to
prevent him from indulging in similar activities.
HCP 94/2025 16
35. 2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
Here we may gainfully refer to the observations of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Haradhan Saha vs. State of W.B.; (1975) 3 SCC 198:-
“32. The power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from
punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary
power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an
offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It does not overlap with prosecution
even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or
may have been launched. An order of preventive detention, may be made
before or during prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be made
with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even
acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive
detention. An order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution.
33. Article 14 is inapplicable because preventive detention and prosecution
are not synonymous. The purposes are different. The authorities are
different. The nature of proceedings is different. In a prosecution an
accused is sought to be punished for a past act. In preventive detention, the
past act is merely the material for inference about the future course of
probable conduct on the part of the detenu.”
36. A similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Naresh Kumar
Goyal vs. Union of India; (2005) 8 SCC 276:- wherein it was observed as under
“It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or
punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object of which being to
prevent the anti-social and subversive elements from imperiling the welfare
of the country or the security of the nation or from disturbing the public
tranquility or from indulging in smuggling activities or from engaging in
illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances etc. Preventive
Detention is devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the
subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised
to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having
done something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from
doing so.”
37. It is manifest from a plain reading of the grounds of detention and the
impugned detention order that, despite a dozen FIRs lodged against the
petitioner for serious offences of murder and offences under the Explosive
Substances Act and Arms Act, and a dozen DDRs entered in his name in the
concerned police station, he continued to indulge in anti-national and anti-social
activities. These cases failed to deter him from indulging in activities prejudicial
to the security of the UT and the country. It appears from the tone and tenor of
the impugned order and the grounds of detention that, when he was put under
HCP 94/2025 17
close surveillance, it came to light from sister agencies that petitioner 2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
was
instigating and provoking youth of the area and its surroundings against the
Government with the intention to disrupt peace and tranquility. It was
apprehended that he may create communal tension to threaten the sovereignty
and integrity of the UT of J&K and the country.
38. The contention of the petitioner that detaining authority has unreasonably
and arbitrarily passed the impugned order in a mechanical fashion without
proper application of mind, in the circumstances of the case, deserves outright
rejection. The details of multiple FIRs and DDRs registered against the
petitioner with reference to his past activities, in fact, manifest the awareness of
the detaining authority and application of mind on its part before it embarked
upon to pass the impugned detention order. Therefore, the impugned order,
having regard to the circumstances of the case, appears to have been passed by
the detaining authority on a reasonable prognosis of his future behavior based
on his past conduct and in the light of attending circumstances. This Court, in
exercise of writ jurisdiction, has a very limited scope to scrutinize the grounds
of detention. As observed, the writ court cannot examine the sufficiency of
material or sit in appeal over the subjective decision of the detaining authority to
substitute its own opinion, when grounds of detention are precise, pertinent and
proximate.
39. For what has been observed and discussed above, the grounds of
detention, on the basis of which impugned order came to be passed by the
detaining authority, are not only found to be definite but also free from any
ambiguity. The petitioner has been informed with sufficient clarity about the
said grounds and allegations against him in the language which he fully
understood. What weighed with the detaining authority at the time of passing of
HCP 94/2025 18
2026:JKLHC-JMU:549
the impugned order are the narrated facts and figures in detail, which
constrained it to exercise its power under Section 8 PSA after recording the
satisfaction that he was required to be placed under preventive detention in
order to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of
the UT and sovereignty of the country.
40. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the
impugned order of detention. Hence, present petition is dismissed and impugned
order is upheld.
(Rajesh Sekhri)
Judge
JAMMU
26.02.2026.
Abinash
Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes
HCP 94/2025 19