Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mohammad Syed Rehman Shamus vs Union Territory Of J&K Through on 18 April, 2026
Page |1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(Cr.) No. 373/2022
Reserved on: 09.04.2026
Pronounced on: 18.04.2026
Mohammad Syed Rehman Shamus
S/O Shamus Ammer-U-Din
R/O West Bengal A/P Hubi Colony,
Sikhbagh, Lal Bazar, Srinagar.
...Petitioner(s)
Through: Advocate N.A.Ronga.
Vs.
1. Union Territory of J&K through
Principal Secretary to Govt. Home Deptt.,
Civil Sectt. Srinagar.
2. District Magistrate, Srinagar.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Assisting counsel Maha Majid vice
Sr.AAG.Mohsin Qadri.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A.CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. District Magistrate, Srinagar-Respondent No.2 (for short ‘Detaining
Authority’) in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 8
of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 has passed the Detention Order
No. DMS/PSA/97/2021 dated 07.12.2021 (for short ‘impugned
order’), in terms whereof the detenue was ordered to be detained to
prevent him from the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of
Public Order.
Page |2
1. The order of detention is challenged by the detenue through the
medium of this petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the
respondents have not followed due procedure of law while detaining
the detenue under the preventive law which renders his detention
illegal; that the illegal activities attributed to the detenue are all
imaginary and based on surmises and are false, baseless and
concocted; that the detenue was illegally implicated in FIR Nos.
56/2011 and 41/2021 under Section 13 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act; that the detaining authority has not applied its
mind while preparing the grounds of detention and has acted as
spokesman of the Police agencies and has framed the grounds of
detention at their behest; that there is no cogent material to detain the
detenue under the preventive law; that the satisfaction is illusory and
not valid one; that after registration of FIR Nos. 56/2011 and
41/2021, there are no fresh allegations leveled against the detenue,
therefore, the detention of the detenue is patently illegal and against
the law and deserves to be quashed.
2. Respondents, pursuant to notice, have filed their reply affidavit,
wherein it is stated that the order of detention is based on a
reasonable prediction of future behavior of the detenue. The
detenue’s anti-national and illegal activities have posed a serious
threat to the maintenance of public order of the UT of J&K. It is
submitted that the preventive detention is devised to afford
protection to the Society and the object is not to punish a man for
having done something but to intercept him before he does it and to
prevent him from doing. It is further stated that any preventive
Page |3
measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship upon
individuals, do not contribute in any way the nature of punishment.
3. Learned counsel for the detenue has raised the plea of vagueness in
the grounds of detention. It is being stated that the allegations
leveled in the grounds of detention relate to the year 2011 and 2021
and those activities have no proximity with present time for the
purpose of preventive detention unless any fresh activity is not
attributed to the petitioner. It is also contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that it is not mentioned in the impugned
detention order that normal law was ever invoked before taking
recourse to preventive detention law and that too was applied merely
on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has
supported the detention order of the detenue. He contended that the
detenue’s continuous anti-national and illegal activities has made it
imperative to detain the detenue under the provisions of Public
Safety Act and there were sufficient grounds available for such
detention. It is further contended that the live link is still sustaining,
as the detenue is still involved in the anti-national activities and the
adverse reports led the sponsoring agency to recommend the detenue
for preventive detention under the provisions of the Public Safety
Act.
5. Heard, perused the material available on record and considered the
same.
6. The allegations leveled against the detenue that he was involved in
instigating disgruntled elements to resort to large scale violence and
was indulged in illegal activities which are aimed to create law and
Page |4
order problems, is all vague and in such a situation the detenue
would not be in a position to submit an effective and a meaningful
representation before the detaining authority or the competent
authority in the Government, to have a fresh look into the matter.
Vagueness does invalidate the detention order in the circumstance.
In this regard reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Apex
Court, in case titled ‘Chaju Ram Vs. State of J&K‘ reported as AIR
1971 SC 263, wherein it has been observed and enunciated that:-
“Even as to the grounds, we have something to say. The
grounds charge him with having conspired with some
leaders of Democratic Conference and having incited
landless people of R.S.Pura Tehsil to forcibly occupy the
land comprised in Nandpur Mechanised Farm and to
have persuaded them to resist violently any attempt to evict
them. No details of the leaders of the Conference or of the
persons incited or the dates on which he conspired or
incited the squatters or the time when such conference
took place, are mentioned. It would be impossible for
anybody to make a representation against such grounds.
These grounds, on the authorities of this Court, too
numerous to be cited here, must be held to be vague.
Therefore on both the twin grounds, namely, that he was
deprived of his right to make a representation and also
because the grounds in themselves were very vague, we
must hold that there was no compliance with the law as
laid down in the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive
Detention Act. The result, therefore, is that the detention
must be declared to be unlawful and Chaju must be
declared to be entitled to his liberty. He is ordered to be
released. The detenu was questioned by us and he
expressed a desire that he may not be released in Delhi,
because he has no means of going back. He asked to be
released in Jammu. We direct therefore that he shall be
taken back to the place where he was in detention in
Jammu and released within the shortest possible time.”
7. It is the further argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that
the grounds of impugned detention order is a verbatim copy of the
dossier and no other material has been considered by the detaining
authority which speaks volumes about the non-application of mind
Page |5
on the part of the detaining authority which does not justify the
preventive detention and the detention order requires quashment.
8. In a case titled ‘Jai Singh & Ors. v. State of Jammu &
Kashmir‘ reported as AIR 1985 SC 764, it has been observed that if
the detention order is verbatim copy of the dossier, it would amount
to non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Para-13 of the
judgment being relevant is reproduced as under:-
“13. Applying the settled legal position to the facts of the
present case, I find that the order impugned cannot stand
as it is based on grounds of detention, which is only
verbatim copy of police dossier. The order of detention, for
the reasons, exhibit total non- application of mind on the
part of detaining authority and therefore, the petition is
allowed and the detention order No. PSA/104 dated
16.10.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua-
respondent No. 2 directing the detention of Balbir Chand
S/O Rana R/O Chack Drab Khan, Tehsil and District
Kathua is quashed. Respondents are directed to release the
detenue forthwith, provided he is not required in
connection with any other case”.
9. On perusal of dossier prepared and submitted by the police to the
detaining authority and the impugned order passed by him, based
thereon, it is found that the impugned order, particularly the grounds
therefor, and the grounds mentioned in the dossier by the police are
almost verbatim, except for some cosmetic changes. The impugned
order is, thus, not sustainable on this account alone.
10. It is also notable that normal law in the instant case had to be
assumed to be sufficient to disable the detenue to indulge in any
such activity which may have been in the estimation of the detaining
authority to be treated prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The preventive detention is not a quick alternative to normal process,
is what has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its three-
Page |6
Judge Bench judgment “Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Naidu & Anr.”
reported as (2011) 5 SCC, wherein it has observed that:-
“29. Prevention detention is, by nature, repugnant to
democratic ideas and an anathema to the rule of law.
No such law exists in the USA and in England
(except during war time). Since, however, Article
22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India permits
preventive detention, we cannot hold it illegal but we
must confine the power of preventive detention
within very narrow limits, otherwise we will be taking
away the great right to liberty guaranteed by Article
21 of the Constitution of India which was won after
long, arduous and historic struggles. It follows,
therefore, that if the ordinary law of the land (the
Penal Code and other penal statutes) can deal with a
situation, recourse to a preventive detention law will
be illegal.
30. Whenever an order under a preventive detention
law is challenged one of the questions the court must
ask in deciding its legality is: Was the ordinary law
of the land sufficient to deal with the situation? If the
answer is in the affirmative, the detention order will
be illegal. In the present case, the charge against the
detenu was of selling expired drugs after changing
their labels. Surely the relevant provisions in the
Penal Code and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act were
sufficient to deal with this situation. Hence, in our
opinion, for this reason also the detention order in
question was illegal.”
11. In view of the legal position as stated hereinabove, the impugned
detention order passed on vague grounds, verbatim copy of police
dossier and failure on the part of the detaining authority to record
Page |7
satisfaction that normal law proved insufficient to restrain the
detenue. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be quashed on
these counts.
12. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The impugned Detention Order
bearing No. DMS/PSA/97/2021 dated 07.12.2021, is, hereby
quashed. The detenue namely Mohammad Syed Rehman Shamus
S/O Shamus Ammer-U-Din R/O West Bengal A/P Hubi Colony,
Sikhbagh, Lal Bazar, Srinagar, is directed to be released from
custody forthwith, if not required in any other case(s).
13. Disposed of, in terms of the above.
( M. A. CHOWDHARY )
JUDGE
Srinagar
18.04.2026
Muzammil. Q
Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No
