― Advertisement ―

Internship Experience @ Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority

Name Swathika Kadieswaran Name of the College The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, School of Excellence in Law. Tamil Nadu, Chennai-113. Name of the Organisation The Tamil...
HomeMudasir Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 12...

Mudasir Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 12 March, 2026

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

Mudasir Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 12 March, 2026

Author: Rahul Bharti

Bench: Rahul Bharti

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

                                               Reserved on :   09.02.2026
                                           Pronounced on :     12 .03.2026
                                              Uploaded on :       .03.2026
HCP No. 147/2025


Mudasir Ahmad Bhat
                                                          .....Petitioner

                      Through: Mr. Zamir Abdullah, Advocate with
                               Mr. Zahir Abdullah, Advocate

             Vs
Union Territory of J&K and others


                                                      ..... Respondents

                      Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA
CORAM:
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
                             JUDGMENT

01. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well

for the respondents. Perused the pleadings i.e. the writ

petition and the annexures therewith as well as the

counter affidavit. Detention record produced from the end

of the respondents by Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, learned GA

also examined.

02. The best opening which adjudication of this case

deserves to be put at first is the ever awakening words of

renowned Scientist Albert Einstein saying that

HCP No. 147/2025 Page 1 of 15
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters

cannot be trusted with the important matters.”

03. Exercise of jurisdiction under the Jammu &

Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 is constitutionally meant

and understood to be very serious jurisdiction which

admits of no carelessness on the part of its handlers at

any stage of but in the present case the respondents No.

1 to 3 are found to be acting in converse to the aforesaid

saying of Mr. Albert Einstein.

04. This is a writ petition under article 226 of the

Constitution of India filed on 27.05.2025 by the

petitioner- Mudasir Ahmad Bhat, acting through his wife

Mst. Shagufta Akhter, thereby seeking a writ of habeas

corpus for quashment of preventive detention which

came to be inflicted upon the petitioner by the

respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama

purportedly acting in exercise of jurisdiction under

section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act,

1978 which resulted in curtailment of personal liberty of

the petitioner with effect from 01.05.2025 when the

petitioner came to be allegedly arrested and detained and

HCP No. 147/2025 Page 2 of 15
continues to be so till coming of adjudication of this writ

petition.

05. Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Pulwama, by

virtue of his letter No. CS/PSA/25/25-28 dated

28.04.2025, came to lay a dossier with respect to the

petitioner thereby purportedly projecting before the

respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama alleged

state of activities of and on the part of the petitioner

which were read and reckoned by the District Police as

needed to be checked so as to prevent the petitioner from

disturbing peace and carrying out further anti-national

activities which warrant the preventive detention of the

petitioner under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety

Act, 1978 purely in the interest of security of the

Country/Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.

06. In the dossier, Sr. Superintendent of Police

(SSP), Pulwama came to refer the petitioner working as a

salesman in a tin shop at Main Market, Pulwama and in

his course of working and occupation getting in contact

with anti-national workers, some killed terrorists and

getting himself engaged in subversive/anti-national

activities.

HCP No. 147/2025 Page 3 of 15

07. The petitioner was also referred to be a working

potential OGW of active terrorist, namely, Ehsan-ul-Haq,

providing all logistic support to him as well as to other

terrorists whose floating movements were being observed

in District Pulwama especially in Mitrigam area and

providing them information about movement of Security

Forces.

08. The petitioner was also reported to be luring

young generation to get them engaged in anti-national

activities and to join terrorist rank through his

supporters.

09. In order to check the aforesaid alleged reported

activities of the petitioner, he is said to have been called

by the concerned Police Station twice on 28.02.2025 and

23.04.2025 by reference to authority under section

126/170 of BNSS but despite that the field reports

provided that the petitioner was still providing all sort of

assistance to active (local/FT) terrorists on account of

being highly radicalized and sympathizer to terrorists

having natural tendency to support terrorists engrossed

in making unswerving efforts to influence the gullible

minds of youngsters and make them to support the
HCP No. 147/2025 Page 4 of 15
terrorists and terrorist organizations in order to promote

the terrorism by every possible means with an aim to

prepare the youth to join different terrorists folds in order

to strengthen and revive their lost strength which

otherwise has been crippled over past few years to create

uncertainty in Kashmir Valley especially in Pulwama

(Mitrigam area).

10. With aforesaid profiling and caricaturing of the

petitioner in the dossier, Sr. Superintendent of Police

(SSP), Pulwama solicited the preventive detention of the

petitioner by issuance of an order from the respondent

No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama who, in turn on the

basis of purported subjective satisfaction as formulated

in the grounds of detention, came to hold that the

petitioner’s activities run heavily against him and highly

prejudicial to the security of the State thereby warranting

the preventive detention of the petitioner.

11. The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,

Pulwama, based upon his subjective satisfaction as

formulated in the grounds of detention, passed detention

order No. 12/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30.04.2025 thereby

ordering the preventive detention of the petitioner and his
HCP No. 147/2025 Page 5 of 15
confinement in District Jail, Udhampur for a period to be

specified by the Government.

12. Co-inciding with issuance of aforesaid detention

order, the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,

Pulwama, by virtue of a communication No.

DMP/PSA/25/ 34-36 dated 30.04.2025, meant to

apprise the petitioner about passing of the detention

order against him and his right to file a representation to

the District Magistrate, Pulwama as well as to the

Government.

13. The detention order so issued against the

petitioner came to be executed with alleged arrest of the

petitioner purportedly taking place on 01.05.2025 when

Sub Inspector Mohd. Yousuf, PID No. 911597/EXK of

District Police Line, Pulwama detained the petitioner and

handed over his person to the Superintendent District

Jail, Udhampur on 01.05.2025 itself.

14. The petitioner is said to have been handed over

nine (9) leaves compilation comprising of Copy of warrant

(1 leaf), Notice of detention (1 leaf), Grounds of detention

HCP No. 147/2025 Page 6 of 15
(2 leaves), Dossier (2 leaves), Copies of Istegasa (2 leaves),

and Beat Report (1 leaf).

15. In addition, the petitioner is said to have been

read over and explained the contents of grounds of

detention in Urdu as well as Kashmir language which is

said to have been understood by him and also apprised of

his right to make a representation to the Government.

16. The aforesaid detention order so passed by the

respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama came to

be approved by issuance of Govt. Order No. Home/PB-

V/876 of 2025 dated 08.05.2025 and the case referred

to the Advisory Board for its opinion which came to be

tendered on file No. Home/PB-V/207/2025 dated

21.05.2025 with Advisory Board’s finding that the

preventive detention of the petitioner is fully justified.

17. It is at this stage of his detention that the

petitioner had come forward with the present writ petition

filed on 27.05.2025 assailing the exercise of jurisdiction

at the end of the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,

Pulwama in subjecting the petitioner to preventive

detention and in this regard in writ petition in para 5,

HCP No. 147/2025 Page 7 of 15
grounds of challenge came to be set out in sub-para (a) to

(x).

18. By virtue of Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/1053

of 2025 dated 30.05.2025, the Govt. of UT of Jammu &

Kashmir through its Home Department came to lend its

confirmation to the preventive detention Order No.

12/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30.04.2025 of the respondent

No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama, and came to

prescribe six months’ of detention period of the petitioner

with effect from 01.05.2025 to 31.10.2025.

19. The petitioner came to submit a written

representation dated 02.06.2025 thereby seeking

recalling/ revocation of his preventive detention.

20. This representation was duly received and

acknowledged by the Home Department, Govt. of UT of

Jammu & Kashmir against receipt No.

Home/PS/K/25/122 dated 02.06.2025.

21. From the end of the Home Department. Govt. of

UT of Jammu & Kashmir, in terms of communication No.

Home/PBV/207/ 2025 dated 06.06.2025, inputs were

solicited from CID J&K in connection with the

HCP No. 147/2025 Page 8 of 15
consideration of representation of the petitioner so

submitted.

22. In response to aforesaid communication from

the Home Department, Govt. of UT of Jammu & Kashmir,

CID J&K, by virtue of its communication No.

CID/SSP(A)/ BR/3-M/2018/PUL/3983 dated

15.07.2025, came to tender its inputs for facilitating the

Home Department, Govt. of UT of Jammu & Kashmir to

accord consideration to the representation of the

petitioner.

23. Acting upon said inputs from CID J&K, the

Home Department, Govt. of UT of Jammu & Kashmir by

virtue of its communication No. Home/PB-V/207/2025/

(76448645) dated 23.07.2025 came to apprise the

respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama about

the rejection of the petitioner’s representation being

devoid of merit. Copy of this communication was

addressed to the Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur

with a direction to inform the petitioner regarding the

instant disposal of his representation with a further

direction to furnish copy of receipt/acknowledgment of

said disposal duly signed by the petitioner to the
HCP No. 147/2025 Page 9 of 15
respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama as being

the detaining authority and the Home Department, Govt.

of UT of Jammu & Kashmir for the purpose of record

without any fail.

24. In response to aforesaid direction of the Home

Department, Govt. of UT of Jammu & Kashmir meant

upon him, the respondent No. 3 – Superintendent

District Jail, Udhampur by virtue of its communication

No. DJU/MS/25/7791-94 dated 25.07.2025 addressed

to the Additional Secretary to Govt. of Jammu &

Kashmir, Home Department came to apprise the

petitioner about the disposal of his representation in

terms of communication No. Home/PB-

V/207/2025/(76448645) dated 23.07.2025.

25. Counter affidavit to this petition came to be filed

from the end of the respondent No. 2 – District

Magistrate, Pulwama on 02.08.2025 whereafter this writ

petition remained pending for hearing.

26. In the course of this pendency, by virtue of

Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/1950/2025 dated

28.10.2025 the petitioner’s detention period came to be

HCP No. 147/2025 Page 10 of 15
further extended by another six months to last till

30.04.2026.

27. It is aforesaid backdrop that this Court has

come across with the adjudication of this writ petition

when reference made in the very opening para of this

judgment about the words of Albert Einstein come into

play to expose in broad daylight the situation which can

be summed up by observing that the respondents’ right

hand not knowing what left hand is doing.

28. In this regard, this Court’s attention is drawn to

the discordance between the factual reference in the

Dossier of Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Pulwama

and the Grounds of detention formulated by the

respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama.

29. In the Dossier, Sr. Superintendent of Police

(SSP), Pulwama has referred to calling of the petitioner by

a concerned police station twice on 28.02.2025 and

23.04.2025 under section 126/170 BNSS, without

divulging which police station and full form of BNSS

meaning what, but be that as it may, the respondent No.

2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama in his grounds of

HCP No. 147/2025 Page 11 of 15
detention refers to two different dates of concerned police

station calling the petitioner under section 126/170

BNSS and said two dates being 28.02.2025 and

23.02.2025.

30. It has bothered least the application of mind on

the part of the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,

Pulwama to read very draft of his grounds of detention to

come across with an error that there was no such calling

of the petitioner on 23.02.2025 reported in the dossier of

the Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Pulwama.

31. In very opening para of the writ petition, the

petitioner, acting through his wife, has come up with an

assertion that the Police Station Pulwama, without any

justification and cause, had arrested the petitioner on

22.04.2025 which date at first glance left this Court

speculating as to how the petitioner’s wife could come up

with such a wild un-substantiated averment of petitioner

being arrested on 22.04.2025 whereas the detention

order against the petitioner came to be passed on

30.04.2025 and actual arrest of the petitioner being

reported on 01.05.2025. However, the truth comes

sneaking out from the very correspondence of the
HCP No. 147/2025 Page 12 of 15
respondent No. 3 – Superintendent District Jail,

Udhampur which is communication No.

DJU/MS/25/7791-94 dated 25.07.2025 addressed to

the Additional Secretary to Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir,

Home Department wherein the respondent No. 3 –

Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur is on record

saying that the petitioner is lodged in District Jail,

Udhampur with effect from 05.12.2024 meaning thereby

even prior to date 22.04.2025 as asserted by the

petitioner in his writ petition.

32. Very disturbingly, the respondent No. 3 –

Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur refers to the

lodgment of the petitioner in District Jail, Udhampur with

effect from 05.12.2024 under the J&K Public Safety Act,

1978 by reference to the very impugned order of the

respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama which is

Order No. 12/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30.04.2025.

33. Copy of aforesaid communication of the

respondent No. 3 – Superintendent District Jail,

Udhampur was duly addressed to the respondent No. 2 –

District Magistrate, Pulwama as well.

HCP No. 147/2025 Page 13 of 15

34. Thus, it occurred to none i.e. Additional

Secretary to Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir, Home

Department as well as the respondent No. 2 – District

Magistrate, Pulwama to bother their attention and

concern by calling upon the respondent No. 3 –

Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur as to on what

basis he came to reflect the fact of petitioner’s lodgment

in Jail with effect from 05.12.2024.

35. The aforesaid scenario only reflects that there is

no one at the end of the respondents bearing alertness

and aliveness to the handling of preventive detention

cases which seem to be left to be attended to by the

subordinate staff at the disposal of Home Department,

Govt. of UT of Jammu & Kashmir as well as District

Magistracy otherwise it is inconceivable that glaring

errors of such nature would have been spared attention

and correction at the end of the respective respondents.

36. This Court is holding back its further

observations to come to a conclusion that the preventive

detention inflicted upon the petitioner is painful and

pinching to the very constitutional sensitivity with which

HCP No. 147/2025 Page 14 of 15
preventive detention jurisdiction is supposed to be

exercised and carried out.

37. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

the preventive detention of the petitioner is hereby

declared illegal rendering the impugned detention Order

No. 12/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30.04.2025 passed by the

respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama read

with consequent approval/confirmation/extension orders

passed by the Home Department, UT of Jammu &

Kashmir which are also held and declared to be illegal

and are, accordingly, quashed.

38. The Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur is

directed to restore the petitioner to his personal liberty

forthwith.

39. Disposed of.

(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
12 .03.2026
“Opinder”

Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No
Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes / No

HCP No. 147/2025 Page 15 of 15



Source link