Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mumtaz Ahmed Th. Nisar Ahmed vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 25 March, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No: LPA No. 83/2025
(in HCP No.118/2024)
Reserved on: 11.02.202
Pronounced on: 25.03.2026
Uploaded on: 25.03.2026
Whether the operative part or
full Judgment is pronounced : Full
Mumtaz Ahmed Th. Nisar Ahmed
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Lawanya Sharma, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K and others
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
PER OSWAL-J
1. The appellant came to be detained pursuant to Order No.
17/DMP/PSA of 2024 dated 26.07.2024, issued by the District
Magistrate, Poonch (respondent No. 2), in exercise of powers under
Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), with a view to prevent him
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State of
India as well as the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.
LPA No. 83/2025 Page 1 of 8
2. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of detention through
the medium of HCP No. 118/2024 titled ‘Mumtaz Ahmed S/o Nisar
Ahmed v. Union Territory of J&K and others‘, however, he could
not succeed, as the learned Writ Court dismissed the petition vide
judgment dated 07.04.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the
“impugned judgment”).
3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 07.04.2025, the
appellant challenges the same on grounds identical to those urged
before the Writ Court. During submissions, Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant, confined the challenge to two
specific grounds: first, that the appellant was not supplied with the
complete material relied upon by the detaining authority; and
second, that the grounds of detention are a verbatim reproduction of
the dossier, reflecting a non-application of mind. In support of these
contentions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of
this Court in ‘Mohd. Riaz Malik v. UT of J&K and others‘ (LPA
No. 228/2025, decided on 05.02.2026).
4. Per contra, Mrs. Kohli, learned Senior AAG, argued that the
appellant’s role as an Over Ground Worker (OGW) made him a key
operative for terror groups in District Poonch. The UT’s contention
is that he actively facilitated logistical support and leaked sensitive
information regarding security force movements. Mrs. Kohli
submitted that the detention order was a necessary and valid
response to these illegal activities. Furthermore, she asserted that
the respondents complied with every procedural safeguard
LPA No. 83/2025 Page 2 of 8
mandated by the Constitution and the J&K Public Safety Act. As
the learned Writ Court correctly rejected the appellant’s previous
contentions, the impugned judgment remains legally sound and
does not merit interference.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
record.
6. Before evaluating the contentions raised by the appellant, it is
necessary to outline the allegations leveled against him. Respondent
No. 2 states that the appellant is an Over Ground Worker (OGW)
for the banned outfit Jaish-e-Mohammad and consistently receives
instructions from a wanted terrorist operative, Haq Nawaz (S/O
Mohd Arif, R/O Salwah Mendhar). The said operative is currently
evading arrest in FIR No. 42/2023 under Sections 302, 307, 120-B,
121, 122, 436 IPC; 3/4 ESA; 7/25/26/27 Arms Act; and 16/18/20
UA(P) Act, of Police Station Gursai, and is reportedly based in
Saudi Arabia. This case pertains to the terrorist attack on an Army
vehicle at Tota Wali Gali on 20.04.2023, which resulted in the
martyrdom of five Army personnel.
7. It is further stated that intelligence suggests the appellant
communicates with terrorist handlers via sophisticated, encrypted
technologies, complicating surveillance efforts. Furthermore, the
appellant is son-in-law of another OGW, Mohd. Shabir and
voluntarily assists terrorists operating in the District Poonch. He is
alleged to have regularly provided information on security force
movements and facilitated the logistics and transportation of arms
LPA No. 83/2025 Page 3 of 8
and ammunition. Consequently, the appellant’s activities are
characterized as posing a direct threat to national security and the
security of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.
8. Having taken into consideration the alleged illegal activities
attributed to the appellant, respondent No. 2 proceeded to issue the
order of detention. The detention record, produced by Mrs. Kohli,
learned Senior AAG, reveals that at the time of execution of the
detention order on 29.07.2024, the appellant was furnished with the
following documents: the detention order (01 leaf), notice of
detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves), and dossier of
detention (05 leaves). The record further reflects that the appellant
acknowledged receipt of the said documents by appending his
signature on the Execution Report. Similarly, the appellant has also
appended his signatures in English on the receipt of the grounds of
detention and other relevant documents. The detention record
produced before this Court further reveals that the detaining
authority arrived at its subjective satisfaction on the basis of the
dossier and the report of the District Special Branch (DSB). A
perusal of the said report indicates that the allegations have been
levelled against the appellant, inter alia, that he was providing
logistic support to the militants.
9. As noted above, Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant, has confined the challenge to both the impugned
judgment and the detention order to two specific grounds: (i) that
the appellant was not furnished with the complete material i.e. 10
LPA No. 83/2025 Page 4 of 8
FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention and dossier, relied upon
by the detaining authority while issuing the order of detention; and
(ii) that the grounds of detention are a verbatim reproduction of the
dossier, thereby vitiating the order for non-application of mind.
10.The first contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the non-
furnishing of the entire material relied upon by the detaining
authority vitiates the detention order. However, as noted above,
Respondent No. 2 derived his subjective satisfaction strictly from
the dossier and the special report submitted by the District Special
Branch (DSB). It was solely upon consideration of this material that
the impugned order was issued. Regarding the appellant’s grievance
over the non-production of the FIRs mentioned in the grounds of
detention, we find that these FIRs were referenced merely to
recount the history of terrorist attacks in District Poonch. Crucially,
all material actually relied upon by the detaining authority, with the
exception of the privileged intelligence report, was duly provided to
the appellant.
11.It must be noted that OGWs of terrorists organisations act with a
level of secrecy that often shields their illegal activities from
immediate detection. Their role is foundational; the continued
presence of militants in difficult terrain is simply not sustainable
without the active support and network provided by OGWs.
Recognition must be given to the fact that the activities of Over
Ground Workers are primarily identified through intelligence
reports. Direct evidence is rarely forthcoming due to the secretive
LPA No. 83/2025 Page 5 of 8
nature and specific mode of operation adopted by these workers to
shield their illegal actions.
12.Learned writ court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Wasi-ud-din Ahmed vs. D.M. Aligarh (1981)
4 SCC 521 and that of the co-ordinate bench of this court in Mian
Abdul Qayoom Vs. UT of J&K and others, 2020(4) JKJ (HC)
127 to hold that the special report prepared by the District Special
Branch pertains to intelligence report and was not required to be
provided to appellant in light of statutory provision contained in the
Act that vests power with the detaining authority to withhold the
facts, disclosure of which would be against public interest.
In ‘Wasiuddin Ahmed v. D.M., (1981) 4 SCC 521’, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:
21. No doubt, the constitutional imperatives of Article
22(5) enjoin the disclosure of all the basic facts and
materials which have been taken into account by the
detaining authority in making the order of detention,
but this right of the detenu is subject to the provisions
of Article 22(6). Article 22(6) of the Constitution
provides that nothing in clause (5) shall require an
authority making an order of detention, to disclose
facts which such authority considers to be against the
public interest. Under Article 22(6), the District
Magistrate was, therefore, not bound to disclose the
intelligence reports and it was also not necessary for
him to supply the history-sheet, if any. In Khudiram
Das v. State of West Bengal the Court, in somewhat similar
circumstances, held that the non-disclosure of the history-
sheet had not the effect of invalidating the order of
detention.
(emphasis added)
13.Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act provides that the grounds of
detention must be disclosed to the detenu as soon as possible, but
ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances
and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days
LPA No. 83/2025 Page 6 of 8
from the date of detention. The grounds of detention were served
upon the appellant when he was detained on 29.07.2024 pursuant to
the order of detention. Sub-section 2 of section 13 exempts the
detaining authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against
the public interest to disclose. Mrs. Kohli, learned Senior counsel is
correct in her submission that in view of the provisions contained in
Section 13 (2) of the Act that the intelligence report of District
Special Branch was not provided to the appellant as it would have
compromised the public interest.
14.In view of the aforesaid legal position, we do not find any merit in
the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that the
complete material relied upon by the detaining authority was not
furnished to him, thereby depriving him of his valuable right to
make an effective representation. Accordingly, the said contention
is rejected.
15.The final ground urged by Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant, is that the grounds of detention are a mere replica of the
dossier, thereby reflecting a non-application of mind by the
detaining authority. We have carefully examined the grounds of
detention alongside the dossier and the detention order. While
certain factual similarities are inevitable when both documents arise
from the same set of allegations, we do not find the grounds to be a
verbatim reproduction of the dossier. The learned Writ Court, upon
a similar comparison, reached the same conclusion. Consequently,
the judgment relied upon by the appellant is factually
LPA No. 83/2025 Page 7 of 8
distinguishable and fails to advance the case of appellant, especially
given our finding that the grounds of detention were independently
formulated.
16.We have carefully examined the impugned judgment and find no
illegality, infirmity, or impropriety therein warranting interference
by this Court. The judgment rendered by the learned Writ Court is
well-reasoned and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal
is dismissed, along with all connected CM(s), if any.
(Rajnesh Oswal) (Arun Palli)
Judge Chief Justice
Jammu
25.03.2026
Madan Verma-Secy
Whether order is speaking? Yes
Whether order is reportable? Yes
LPA No. 83/2025 Page 8 of 8
