05.02.2026 vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 20 February, 2026

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Reserved On: 05.02.2026 vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 20 February, 2026

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                                         2026:JKLHC-JMU:470



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

                           HCP No. 157/2025

                                            Reserved on: 05.02.2026
                                         Pronounced on : 20.02.2026
                                           Uploaded on : 20.02.2026
                                     Whether the operative part or full
                                       judgment is pronounced: Full

Koushal Sharma
                                                             ....Petitioners

               Through:-       Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.

                           V/s

UT of J&K & Ors
                                                         .....Respondents

               Through:-       Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
\

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

(JUDGMENT)

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present

petition, has challenged order No. PITNDPS 61 of 2025 dated

10.10.2025 (hereinafter to be referred to as (“impugned order

of detention”) issued by respondent No. 2-Divisional

Commissioner, Jammu whereby he has been placed under

preventive detention with a view to prevent him from indulging

in activities relating to illicit traffic of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances.

02. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order of

detention on the grounds that the said order has been issued

by respondent No. 2 in an arbitrary manner without

HCP No. 157/2025 Page 1 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:470

application of mind. It has been contended that the petitioner

has not been apprised about his right to make a

representation before the Central Government. It has been

further contended that petitioner is a teenager and by passing

the impugned order of detention, respondent No. 2 has

misused his powers. It has also been contended that DDR

reports mentioned in the grounds of detention do not relate to

any activities pertaining to illicit trafficking of drugs, therefore,

the same could not have been made the basis for passing the

impugned order of detention.

03. It has also been contended that the petitioner has

already been booked in two FIRs and there were no compelling

reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order

of detention instead of dealing with the petitioner under

normal criminal law. It has been further contended that

translated version of the material relied upon for passing the

impugned order of detention has not been furnished to him. It

has also been contended that the allegations made in the

grounds of detention are vague, lacking in material particulars

and on the basis of such allegations, no effective

representation could have been made by the petitioner.

04. It has been further contended that an application

for cancellation of bail of the petitioner had already been

moved before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Udhampur but without waiting for final outcome of the said

application, the impugned order of detention has been passed.

HCP No. 157/2025 Page 2 of 13

2026:JKLHC-JMU:470

05. The petition has been contested by the respondents

by filing counter affidavit of the detaining authority viz

respondent No. 2. In the counter affidavit, it has been

submitted that representation of the petitioner was considered

by respondent No. 2 and the same was rejected. It has been

submitted that the information regarding rejection of

representation of the petitioner was duly conveyed to him

through Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. It

has been further contended that the impugned order of

detention has been passed in consonance with law.

06. It has been submitted that after perusal of the

record, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that it

was imperative to detain the petitioner because after getting

bail, he was again involved in illicit trafficking of narcotic

drugs, which was posing serious threat to the public order as

well as to the health and welfare of the people. It has been

submitted that ordinary law has failed to detain the petitioner

from indulging in similar activities.

07. According to the respondents, whole of the material,

on the basis of which grounds of detention have been

formulated, has been provided to the petitioner and contents of

the same have been explained to the detenue in Hindi and

Dogri languages, which he understands. It has been further

submitted that the petitioner was informed about his right to

make representation before the Government as well as before

the detaining authority. It has been further submitted that all

HCP No. 157/2025 Page 3 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:470

the statutory and legal requirements were followed by the

respondents while executing the detention order against the

petitioner. The respondents have also produced detention

record to lend support to their contentions.

08. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused record of the case including the detention record

which has been produced by the respondents.

09. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised

numerous grounds for assailing the impugned order of

detention but his main focus was on the ground that his

representation against the impugned order of detention has

not been considered by the detaining authority viz respondent

No. 2. It has also been contended that respondent No. 1 has

not considered the representation of the petitioner but has

forwarded the same to the Advisory Board, which has no

jurisdiction to either reject or accept the representation.

10. A perusal of the detention record reveals that the

petitioner has made representation dated 18.10.2025, which

has been addressed to the Home Department and a copy

thereof has been sent to respondent No. 2-the detaining

authority for its consideration. The record further reveals that

the representation addressed to the Government was

forwarded to the Advisory Board in terms of communication

dated 23.10.2025 addressed by the Home Department to the

Advisory Board. Vide order dated 03.11.2025, the Advisory

Board rejected the representation of the petitioner whereafter

HCP No. 157/2025 Page 4 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:470

the impugned order of detention issued against the petitioner

came to be confirmed by the Government in terms of order

dated 14.11.2025.

11. The record further reveals that after confirmation of

the impugned order of detention, the Government sought

comments of the CID regarding representation of the petitioner

vide its communication dated 17.11.2025 and on 26.11.2025,

the Government rejected the representation of the petitioner

and addressed a communication to Divisional Commissioner,

Jammu with a copy to Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot

Bhalwal, Jammu for conveying the information to the

petitioner. It seems that the information regarding rejection of

representation of the petitioner has been conveyed to him

through concerned jail.

12. In the face of the aforesaid facts, which have

emanated from the detention record, the contentions raised by

the petitioner have to be analyzed in the light of the settled

legal position on the subject so as to determine as to what

would be the effect upon the impugned order of detention in

case the representation against the same has been considered

and rejected by the Government but no consideration to the

representation has been accorded by the detaining authority.

13. In the above context, legal position is well settled, in

that, not only the Government but even the detaining authority

has to consider the representation against the impugned order

of detention.

HCP No. 157/2025 Page 5 of 13

2026:JKLHC-JMU:470

14. The Supreme Court has, in A.C. Razia Vs. Govt.

of Kerala and Ors, (2004) 2 SCC 621 in the context of the

COFEPOSA Act, the relevant provisions of which are in pari

materia with the provisions of PITNDPS Act, made the following

observations:

“12. The combined effect of the constitutional and
statutory provisions from the point of view of the detenu’s
right to make the representation is to provide more than
one forum to re-examine or review the case of the detenu
and to afford him various means of redressal of his
grievance. Thus, the matter could be examined by (i) the
Advisory Board (ii) the detaining authority and (iii) the
State or Central Governments acting under Section 11 or
on receipt of Advisory Boards opinion. This is apart from
the power of the Central Government to examine the
validity of detention acting suo motu on receipt of report
under Section 3(2). Under Section 11 – which is of
immediate relevance in the present case, the Central
Government has the power to revoke the orders made by

(i) the State Government, (ii) an officer specially
empowered by the State Government and (iii) an officer
specially empowered by the Central Government. The
order passed by an officer specially empowered by a State
Government can be revoked by the State Government as
well.

“The conferment of this power on the Central and the
State Governments does not, however, detract from the
power that is available to the authority that has made the
order of detention to revoke it.” This is ensured by the
words without prejudice to the provisions of Section 21 of
the General Clauses Act” in sub-section (1) of Section 11
(vide observations of the Constitution Bench in paragraph
22 in the case of Kamlesh Kumar vs. Union of India).”

15. Again the Supreme Court in the case of Ankit

Ashok Jalan Vs. Union of India and Ors, (2020) 16 SCC 127

has clearly held that detaining authority has to consider

HCP No. 157/2025 Page 6 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:470

representation independently without waiting for report of the

Advisory Board. The Supreme Court further held that it is a

well settled law that representation can be made to the

detaining authority and the said authority is vested with power

to consider the representation.

16. From the aforesaid position of law, it is clear that right

to make a representation to the detaining authority or to the

Government is an integral part of Article 22(5) of the

Constitution and, therefore, once it is shown that the

representation made by a detenue to the detaining authority

has not been considered at all, it amounts to infringement of

right of a detenue guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the

Constitution and the same results in making the impugned

order of detention unsustainable in law.

17. In the present case, the record shows that copy of the

representation was addressed to the detaining authority and it

has been received by the said authority even before the

detention order was confirmed by the Government, therefore,

the detaining authority by not taking any action on the

representation of the petitioner has abdicated its duty which

has resulted in infringement of constitutional right of the

petitioner, as such, the impugned order of detention is liable to

be set aside on this ground alone.

18. It also appears that the Government has not properly

approached the representation of the petitioner while

considering and rejecting the same. The record shows that

HCP No. 157/2025 Page 7 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:470

representation of the petitioner was received by the

Government before the matter was referred to Advisory Board.

It was incumbent upon the Government to accord

consideration to the representation of the petitioner before

referring the matter to the Advisory Board. Instead of doing

so, the Government sent the representation to the Advisory

Board and the Board instead of rendering its opinion about the

fate of the representation, proceeded to reject the same which

is beyond its jurisdiction.

19. In the above context, reference may be made to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SK. Sekawat

Vs. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 249, wherein the

Supreme Court has discussed the issue as to in what manner

a representation received from a detenue is to be dealt with.

Para 3 of the said judgment is relevant to the context and the

same is reproduced as under:

“The petitioner, on these facts, contended that the order
confirming the detention of the petitioner having been
passed by the State Government without considering the
representation of the petitioner, the detention of the
petitioner was unlawful as being in violation of Art.
22(5) of the Constitution and section 7 of the Maintenance
of Internal Security Act, 1971. This contention has great
force and it must result in the detention of the petitioner
being set aside. It is now well settled by a decision of five
judges of this Court in Jayanarayan Sukula v. State of
West Bengal(1) that the peremptory language of Art.
22(5) of the Constitution and section 7 of the Act makes it
obligatory that the State Government should consider the
representation of the detenu “as soon as it is received by
it”. The requirement of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution that

HCP No. 157/2025 Page 8 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:470

the authority making the order of detention should afford
the detenu the earliest opportunity of making a
representation against the order of detention would
become illusory if there were no corresponding obligation
on the State Government to consider the representation of
the detenu as early as possible. It is not enough for the
State Government to forward the representation to the
Advisory Board while seeking its opinion as to whether
there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu.
The State Government must itself consider the
representation of the detenu and come to its own
conclusion whether it is necessary to detain the detenu.

If the State Government takes the view, on considering
the representation of the detenu, that it is not necessary
to detain him, it would be wholly unnecessary for it to
place the case of the detenu before the Advisory Board.
The requirement of obtaining the opinion of the Advisory
Board is an additional safeguard for the detenu over and
above the safeguard afforded to him of making a
representation against the order of detention. The opinion
of the Advisory Board, on a consideration of the
representation, is no substitute for the consideration of
the representation by the State Government. This Court,
speaking through Ray, J., as he then was, in Jayanarayan
Sukul v. State of West Bengal, (supra) enunciated the
following four principles to be followed in regard to the
representation of a detenu:

“First, the appropriate authority is bound to give an
opportunity to the detenu to make a representation and to
consider the representation of the detenu as early as
possible. Secondly, the consideration of the representation
of the detenu by the appropriate authority is entirely
independent of any action by the Advisory Board including
the consideration of the representation of the detenu by
the Advisory Board. Thirdly, there should not be any delay
in the matter of consideration. It is true that no hard and
fast rule can be laid down as to the measure of time taken
by the appropriate authority for consideration but it has to
be remembered that the Government has to be vigilant in
the governance of the citizens. A citizen’s right raises a
correlative duty of the State.

HCP No. 157/2025 Page 9 of 13

2026:JKLHC-JMU:470

Fourthly, the appropriate Government is to exercise its
opinion and judgment on the representation before
sending the case along with the detenu’s representation to
the Advisory Board. If the appropriate Government will
release the detenu the Government will not send the
matter to the Advisory Board. If however the Government
will not release the detenu the Government will send the
case along with the detenu’s representation to the
Advisory Board. If thereafter the Advisory Board will
express an opinion in favour of release of the detenu the
Government will release the detenu. If the Advisory Board
will express any opinion against the release of the detenu
the Government may still exercise the power to release
the detenu.” It is possible that sometimes the
representation of the detenu may be received by the State
Government after the case of the detenu has been referred
to the Advisory Board. In such a case, so long as the
representation is received within thirty days from the date
of the detentions the State Government would be bound to
forward it to the Advisory Board. But a question may arise
as to what would be the duty of the State Government
where the representation is received after the expiration
of thirty days from the date of detention. It was contended
on behalf of the State that in such a case there would be
no obligation of the State Government to send the
representation to the Advisory Board, because the State
Government being bound to place the case of the detenu
before the Advisory Board within thirty days from the date
of detention, if the representation is not received within
the period of thirty days, there can be no obligation of the
State Government to forward it to the Advisory Board, We
do not wish to express any opinion on this contention as it
does not arise for consideration on the facts of the present
case. Here the representation of the petitioner was
received by the State Government after the Advisory
Board had made its report and there could then be no
question of sending the representation to the Advisory
Board. But the State Government had not yet confirmed
the order of detention and it was, therefore, bound to
consider the representation of the petitioner. It is obvious
that even where the Advisory Board reports that there is
in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of the

HCP No. 157/2025 Page 10 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:470

detenu, the State Government is not bound to confirm the
order of detention. The State Government has to apply its
mind, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances
relating to the case of the detenu including the opinion of
the Advisory Board and come to its own decision whether
or not to confirm the order of detention. If, therefore, the
State Government has before it at that time the
representation of the detenu, the State Government must
consider it and take it into account for the purpose of
deciding whether to confirm and continue the detention.
This view finds support from the following observations of
Palekar, J. speaking on behalf of the Court in B. Sunder
Rao and Ors. v. State of Orissa(1) :

“Secondly having regard to the second principle referred to
above‘ the Government cannot absolve itself from
considering the representation even at a later stage. We
have seen that after the Advisory Board’s opinion is
received the State Government is bound under section
11 to consider whether it should confirm the detention
order and continue the detention of the person concerned.
Since the Government had not considered the
representation as soon as it was received nor even at the
time of the confirmation and continuation of the
detention, the Government had failed in one of its
obligatory duties With regard to the detention of the
prisoners and, therefore, for that reason also the detention
becomes illegal.”

Here in the present case the representation of the
Petitioner was received by the State Government before it
confirmed the order of detention, but it did not consider
the representation and thus “failed in one of its obligatory
duties with regard to the detention” of the petitioner. The
subsequent consideration and rejection of the
representation of the petitioner could not cure the
invalidity of the order of confirmation. The detention of
the petitioner must, therefore, be held to be illegal and
void.”

HCP No. 157/2025 Page 11 of 13

2026:JKLHC-JMU:470

20. Again in the case of Ankit Ashok Jalan‘s (supra), the

Supreme Court noted the principles relating to the matter of

consideration of representation in the following manner:

“17. In terms of these principles, the matter of
consideration of representation in the context of reference
to the Advisory Board, can be put in following four
categories:-

17.1) If the representation is received well before the
reference is made to the Advisory Board and can be
considered by the appropriate Government, the
representation must be considered with expedition.

Thereafter the representation along with the decision
taken on the representation shall be forwarded to and
must form part of the documents to be placed before the
Advisory Board.

17.2) If the representation is received just before the
reference is made to the Advisory Board and there is no
sufficient time to decide the representation, in terms of
law laid down in Jayanarayan Sukul15 and Haradhan Saha
the representation must be decided first and thereafter
the representation and the decision must be sent to the
Advisory Board. This is premised on the principle that the
consideration by the appropriate Government is
completely independent and also that there ought not to
be any delay in consideration of the representation.
17.3) If the representation is received after the reference
is made but before the matter is decided by the Advisory
Board, according to the principles laid down in Haradhan
Saha, the representation must be decided. The decision as
well as the representation must thereafter be immediately
sent to the Advisory Board.

17.4) If the representation is received after the decision of
the Advisory Board, the decisions are clear that in such
cases there is no requirement to send the representation
to the Advisory Board. The representation in such cases
must be considered with expedition.”

21. From the foregoing analysis of legal position, it is clear

that if a representation is received before reference is made to

HCP No. 157/2025 Page 12 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:470

the Advisory Board, the same has to be considered by the

Government whereafter representation along with decision

taken on representation has to be forwarded to the Advisory

Board. In the present case, admittedly the representation of

the petitioner was received by the Government before the case

was referred to the Advisory Board but instead of considering

the said representation, the Government referred the matter to

Advisory Board and forwarded the copy of the representation

to the Board. The course adopted by the Government in the

present case does not accord with the principles laid down by

the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. Thus, on this

ground also, the impugned order of detention cannot be

sustained.

22. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, the petition is

allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The

respondents are directed to release the petitioner from the

preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in

connection with any other case.

17. The record be returned to learned counsel for the

respondents.

(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
20.02.2026
Naresh/Secy.

Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes

Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes

HCP No. 157/2025 Page 13 of 13