Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Nisar Ahmad Bhagat (23 Years) vs Union Territory Of J&K Through on 29 April, 2026
Page |1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP No.261/2025
Reserved on: 20.04.2026
Pronounced on: 29.04.2026
Uploaded on: 30.04.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced- Full
Nisar Ahmad Bhagat (23 years)
S/O Bashir Ahmad Bhagat,
R/O Balpora Wathoora,
Chadoora, Budgam.
Through his Uncle Khurshid Ahmad Bhat.
...Petitioner(s)
Through: Adv. Wajid Mohammad Haseeb.
Vs.
1. Union Territory of J&K through
Principal Secretary to Govt.,
Home Department,
Civil Sectt. Srinagar.
2. District Magistrate, Budgam.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Budgam.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Dy.AG Bikramdeep Singh.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A.CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in this petition has been thrown to a Detention Order No.
DMB/PSA/11 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 (‘impugned order’) passed
by District Magistrate, Budgam-respondent No.2, vide which
petitioner namely Nisar Ahmad Bhagat (‘the detenue’ for short) has
been ordered to be detained and lodged in District Jail Jammu, under
Page |2
the provisions of The J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, in order to deter
him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the ‘security of the
State’.
1. The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court to question
the impugned detention order, inter-alia, on the ground that the
grounds of detention being vague, no prudent man can make an
effective representation against his detention; that the representation
dated 02.06.2025 filed by the detenue has not been accorded any
consideration; that the procedural safeguards prescribed under J&K
Public Safety Act, 1978 and under Article 21 and 22 of the
Constitution of India have not been followed; that neither any
reference pertaining to the detention of the detenue has been made to
the Advisory Board within prescribed period of limitation under
PSA nor the Board has made any report with respect to sufficiency
of the material; that the grounds of detention are unreasonable and
suffer from non-application of mind; that the detenue has not been
apprised of his right to make representation; that the detenue has not
been served with dossier copy and the connected documents; that the
grounds of detention were supplied to the detenue in a language not
understandable or intelligible to him; that there is no nexus between
the alleged prejudicial activity of the detenue and the security of the
State, sought to be achieved by detention of the detenue.
2. The stand of the petitioner has been resisted by the other side. The
District Magistrate in the counter affidavit is affront with the
contention that no legal, fundamental or statutory right of the
detenue has been infringed in the present case, as the respondents
have complied with all the statutory and constitutional provisions
Page |3
and followed the requisite formalities before passing of the
impugned detention order.
3. It is contention of the respondents that the detenue came to be
detained under the provisions of PSA by virtue of the impugned
detention order issued by District Magistrate, Budgam, after due
adherence of statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees, as
also keeping in mind the object of lawful preventive detention,
which is preventive in nature and not punitive. The grounds of
detention, order of detention and the relevant material relied upon by
the detaining authority was furnished to the detenue within statutory
period provided under Section 13 of PSA. In compliance to the order
passed by the detaining authority, detention order/warrant came to be
executed by the concerned police on 02.05.2025, by virtue of which
the detenue was lodged in District Jail, Jammu. According to the
respondents, the contents of the detention order/warrant and the
grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenue in
the language, which he fully understands, and in lieu whereof the
detenue subscribed his signatures on the execution report. It is also
contended that the detenue was well informed about his right to
make representation to the detaining authority or to the Government
against his detention, however, he did not choose to do so. It is
further contention of the respondents that the detention case of the
detenue was referred to Advisory Board for its opinion, in terms of
Section 15 of the PSA, and the Board, constituted under PSA,
considered the material placed before it and opined that there is
sufficient cause for detention of the detenue and it was only after the
report/opinion of the Advisory Board, the impugned detention order
Page |4
came to be confirmed by the Government vide order No. Home/PB-
V/1018 of 2025 dated 23.05.2025.
4. On the factual front, it is contention of the respondents that the
detenue, through his continuous subversive activities over the years,
established clear and unbroken nexus between his initial
involvement and the present engagement in unlawful activities
which are detrimental to the security of the State. He is mainly
responsible for his involvement in cases registered vide FIR
No.180/2020 under sections 13, 20, 23, 38 ULA(P) Act, and FIR No.
235/2020 under sections 18, 19, 20, 23 ULA(P) Act, P/S Chadoora
and subsequently he was bound down on several times i.e., on
04.11.2023, 04.03.2024, 04.07.204, 01.01.2025, 21.01.2025 and
23.04.2025 under relevant provisions of law. He is reportedly
working as OGW of the banned terrorist outfits TRF/LeT actively
facilitating their operations by providing logistic support, shelter and
other assistance in the area. It is the allegation of respondents that
the detenue indulged in various antinational activities which
facilitated strengthening of network of antinational grid in district
Budgam. According to the respondents, as per the reports received
from field agencies, the aim and objective of the detenue is to target
the members of different communities, creating fear and panic and
disrupt the peaceful atmosphere prevailing in the area.
5. Therefore, in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the District
Magistrate found it necessary and imperative to invoke the
provisions of PSA and to detain the detenue in order to preclude him
from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
Page |5
6. Heard, perused the detention record as has been made available by
learned counsel for the respondents and considered the same.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the impugned
detention order on the ground that procedural safeguards prescribed
under the provisions of PSA and guaranteed under Constitution of
India, have not been complied with by the respondents.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
detenue has not been served with the copies of dossier and other
relevant material which prevented him from making effective
representation against his detention. It is also urged by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the detenue has not been provided an
opportunity of making representation within prescribed period of
law nor he was informed of his right to make representation.
9. Next ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to question
the impugned detention order is that neither translated script of the
detention order in Kashmiri or Urdu language was furnished to the
detenue nor grounds of detention were read over and explained to
him in the language understood by him, which according to the
petitioner is reflection of non-application of mind on the part of the
detaining authority.
10. Section-13 of PSA provides that when a person is detained in
pursuance of 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 the reasons to be recorded in writing
not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to
him, in the language understandable to him, the grounds on which
Page |6
the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity
to make a representation against the detention order.
11. It is, indeed, a settled position of law that communication, as
envisaged by Section 13 of PSA means bringing home to detenue
effective knowledge of facts and grounds on which detention order is
made and to a person who is not conversant with Detention order
language, the grounds of detention must be given in a language
which the detenue understands and in a script that he can read, in
order to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution.
12. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order of detention,
primarily on the ground of vagueness of grounds of detention.
According to the petitioner, the grounds of detention being vague, no
prudent man could make an effective representation against the said
allegation. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
that since the grounds of detention are vague in nature, it prevented
the petitioner from making an effective representation, as a result
whereof fundamental rights of the petitioner, guaranteed in terms of
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, has been infringed.
13. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India reads as below:-
“22(5). When any person is detained in
pursuance of an order made under any law
providing for preventive detention, the authority
making the order shall, as soon as may be,
communicate to such person the grounds on
which the order has been made and shall afford
him the earliest opportunity of making a
representation against the order.”
It is manifest on a plain reading of Article 22(5) of Constitution of
India that consists of two parts. While first part gives a right to a
detenue to be furnished with grounds on which the order has been
Page |7
made as soon as may be, and the second part provides a right to the
detenue to be afforded earliest opportunity of making representation
against the order of detention.
14. The import of Article 22(5) of Constitution of India arose for
discussion before six Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, way back in 1951 in State of Bombay Vs. Atma Ram
Shridhar Vaidya reported in 1951 AIR SC 157, wherein it was
observed that though both the rights are separate, to be exercised at
different times, however, they are connected with each other and it
may not be possible for the detenue to make representation against
the detention order without getting information sufficient to make an
effective representation, otherwise, it was held, that the right will be
illusory one and not real one. It was further observed by the Apex
Court in the aforesaid case that the detenue may be able to make
representation only if he has knowledge of the grounds on which the
authorities conveyed that they were satisfied about the necessity of
making detention order. Relevant excerpt of the judgment contained
in Para-14 reads as under:-
“14. The contention that the grounds are vague
requires some clarification. What is meant by
vague? Vague can be considered as the antonym
of ‘definite.’ If the ground which is supplied is
incapable of being understood or defined with
sufficient certainty it can be called vague. It is
not possible to state affirmatively more on the
question of what is vague. It must vary
according to the circumstances of each case. It
is, however, improper to contend that a ground
is necessarily vague if the only answer of the
detained person can be to deny it. That is a
matter of detail which has to be examined in the
light of the circumstances of each case. If, on
reading the ground furnished it is capable of
being intelligently understood and is sufficiently
definite to furnish materials to enable the
Page |8detained person to make a representation
against the order of detention it cannot be called
vague. The only argument which could be urged
is that the language used in specifying the
ground is so general that it does not permit the
detained person to legitimately meet the charge
against him because the only answer which he
can make is to say that he did not act, as
generally suggested. In certain cases that
argument may support the contention that
having regard to the general language used in
the ground he has not been given the earliest
opportunity to make a representation against the
order of detention. It cannot be disputed that the
representation mentioned in the second part of
Art. 22(5) must be one which on being
considered may give relief to the detained
person.”
15. It is apparent from the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court
that if the grounds of detention furnished by the detaining authority
are not capable of being intelligently understood and sufficiently
definite, so as to enable the detenue to make an effective
representation, the grounds of detention may be termed as vague. In
other words, the detenue may be able to make an effective and
meaningful representation if the details of the facts, on the basis of
which the conclusion is drawn by the detaining authority, are
furnished to him.
16. Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, what comes to fore is that the grounds of detention provided
to the detenue are not only vague but there is no proximity between
the acts attributed to the detenue to the apprehension of the detaining
authority.
17. The allegations against the detenue are that he is working as OGW
of the banned terrorist outfits TRF/LeT actively facilitating their
operations by providing logistic support, shelter and other assistance
Page |9
in the area. It is the allegation of respondents that the detenue is
indulged in various antinational activities which facilitated
strengthening of network of antinational grid in district Budgam.
According to the respondents, as per the reports received from field
agencies, the aim and objective of the detenue is to target the
members of different communities, creating fear and panic and
disrupt the peaceful atmosphere prevailing in the area. The detaining
authority, however, has not provided any details to establish the
allegations.
18. Next allegation against the detenue is that he has involved himself
in various anti-national activities which facilitated strengthening of
anti-national grid of district Budgam. Here again the impugned
detention order lacks categoric details of anti-social/anti-national
elements, with which the detenue is associated.
19. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the detaining authority has
concluded that there is every apprehension that if the detenue is left
at large he will continue to pursue subversive ideology by aiding and
abetting the terrorists in order to perpetrate the acts of violation and
by targeting the members of different communities, creating fear and
panic and disrupt the peaceful atmosphere prevailing in the area.
20. On the first blush, a plain reading of grounds of detention would
suggest that the detenue is indulged in various anti-national/anti-
social activities as he is an active OGW of separatist organizations or
militant outfits, however, it is surprising to note that there is not even
a single specific incident which can be suggestive of the fact that the
detenue was involved in any such incident. Since the allegations
against the detenue are general in nature, therefore, I do not find any
P a g e | 10
legality in the order of detention. The allegations against the detenue
are devoid of specific details, and the detenue is left with no option
but to make general denial of allegations against him that he is not
involved in any such activity alleged to have been committed by
him. It appears that the grounds of detention furnished to the detenue
in the present case are mere conclusion drawn by the detaining
authority based on some material or reports received from the field
agency.
21. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State
of Bombay Vs. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya‘ reported in 1951 AIR
SC 157, has held that something more will be required other than
mere grounds mentioned in the detention order or the grounds of
detention which will enable the detenue to make an effective and
meaningful representation. As already discussed, the detaining
authority in the present case, apart from few documents/material has
not furnished details on the basis of which it formulated the opinion
that normal law of land did not prove sufficient to dissuade him from
indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
22. I am fortified with the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in ‘Jahangir Khan Fazal Khan Pathan Vs. Police
Commissioner & Anr.‘ reported in (1989) 3 SCC 590, where the
allegations against the detenue was that he was a prohibition
bootlegger, doing illegal activity of selling English and Deshi liquor
and he along-with his associates was showing deadly weapons like
Rampuri knife to the innocent persons and was beating the innocent
persons who oppose his activity of liquor etc. Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that the said statements are vague as the detenue could
P a g e | 11
not make an effective representation against the said allegations.
Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:-
“8. The other grounds regarding the vagueness of
the averments made in the grounds about the
petitioner indulging in criminal activities apart
from the five criminal cases lodged under the
Prohibition Act and mentioned in the ground of
detention do not satisfy the requirements
envisaged in Section 3(1) of the PASA Act
inasmuch as the said five specific criminal cases
have no connection with the maintenance of
public order. The aforesaid criminal activity does
not appear to have disturbed the even tempo of
life of the people of Ahmedabad City or of the
particular locality. Furthermore the averments
have been made in the grounds are; Accordingly,
upon careful perusal of complaint and papers
enclosed with the proposal it appears that you are
a prohibition bootlegger, doing illegal activity of
selling English and Deshi liquor. You and your
companion are bearing and showing deadly
weapons like Rampuri knife to the innocent
persons passing through the said locality on the
premise of being of police „Batmider‟ of Police.
And you are beating innocent persons who
oppose your activity of liquor etc. These
statements are vague and without any particulars
as to what place or when and to whom the
detenue threatened with Rampuri knife and
whom he has alleged to have beaten. These vague
averments made in the grounds of detention
hereinbefore are bad inasmuch as the detenue
could not make an effective representation
against the impugned order of detention. As such
the detention order is illegal and bad.”
23. For what has been held by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted case
laws and having regard to the factual aspects of the case on hand as
observed hereinabove, the impugned detention order does not sustain
in the eyes of law. As such, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned detention order No. DMB/PSA/11 of 2025 dated
29.04.2025, is set aside. As a sequel, the detenue namely Nisar
Ahmad Bhagat S/O Bashir Ahmad Bhagat R/O Balpora Wathoora,
P a g e | 12
Chadoora Budgam, is directed to be released from the custody
forthwith, if not required in any other case(s).
24. HCP No.261/2025 is, thus, disposed of, in terms of the above,
alongwith pending application(s).
25. Scanned detention record is directed to be returned back to the
learned counsel for the respondents.
( M. A. CHOWDHARY )
JUDGE
Srinagar
29.04.2026
Muzammil. Q
Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No
