Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rehmatullah vs The Union Territory Of J&K Through Its on 21 May, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
JAMMU
Reserved on: 21.04.2026
Pronounced on: 21.05.2026
Uploaded on: 21.05.2026
Whether operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
CJ Court
LPA No. 159/2025 in
(HCP No. 154/2024),
CM No. 5039/2025
Rehmatullah, age 28 years, S/o Abdul
Ghani Padder, R/o Dessa Bhata, Doda,
A/p Ward No. 7, H. No. 32 Akramabad,
Tehsil and District Doda
...APPELLANTS(S)
Through: - Mr. M. A. Bhat, Advocate
Vs.
1. The Union Territory of J&K through its
Commissioner/ Secretary Home Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu -180001
2. The Chairman, Advisory Board (constituted
under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978) Mini Block
Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
3. The District Magistrate, Doda
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda-
182202
5. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal,
Jammu.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
OSWAL ‘J’
1. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment dated 22.07.2025 rendered by
the learned Writ Court in HCP No.154/2024, whereby the writ petition
LPA No.159/2025 1|Page
preferred by the appellant challenging the order of detention bearing
No. PSA-02 of 2024 dated 09.11.2024, issued by respondent No.3-
District Magistrate, Doda (hereinafter referred to as “the detaining
authority”), came to be dismissed.
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has filed the instant
appeal on the following grounds, among others:
(i) That the grounds of detention rely on five FIRs registered
against the appellant (FIR Nos. 173/2016, 177/2016, 82/2021,
178/2023, and 192/2024). However, the appellant stands
discharged in FIR No. 173/2016 and has been discharged of all
major offences in FIR No. 177/2016, while the remaining FIRs
pertain to ordinary law and order issues that bear no nexus to
the objects of the Public Safety Act;
(ii) That the representation submitted by the appellant was either
not considered in accordance with law or, in any case, the
outcome thereof was never communicated to him, thereby
infringing the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution;
(iii) That the detention order has been passed in a mechanical
manner on vague and omnibus allegations without independent
application of mind;
(iv) That the alleged activities of the appellant do not constitute a
threat to the security of the State or disturbance of public order.
LPA No.159/2025 2|Page
3) Mr. M. A. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that
although the appellant had submitted a representation against the
detention order before the competent authority, the same was neither
considered in accordance with law nor was any decision thereon ever
communicated to him. He further argued that the appellant stands fully
discharged in FIR No. 173/2016 and discharged of major offences in
FIR No. 177/2016, while the remaining FIRs pertain strictly to routine
law and order matters. Consequently, counsel contended that no fresh
prejudicial activity has been attributed to the appellant to warrant the
invocation of preventive detention.
4. Per contra, Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG, argued that the
learned Writ Court has rightly appreciated the matter and that all
procedural safeguards as envisaged under the Constitution and the
Public Safety Act were duly complied with while passing and executing
the detention order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,
including the detention record.
6. The core issue which goes to the root of the matter pertains to the
consideration and communication of decision on the representation
submitted by the appellant’s brother.
7. The detention record indicates that the appellants brother submitted a
representation dated 22.11.2024 to the Chairman of the Advisory
Board, the Commissioner/Secretary to the Government (Home
Department), and the District Magistrate, Doda. Respondent No. 3
LPA No.159/2025 3|Page
rejected the representation on 05.12.2024, but the outcome was never
communicated to the appellant. Respondent No.1 rejected the
representation on 21.01.2025 and communicated the decision to the
detenu, but the date of communication is not specified. Crucially, even
if communication is assumed to have taken place on 21.01.2025,
respondent No.1 took more than one and a half months to decide the
representation, creating an impermissible delay.
8. The law is well settled that the right to make a representation against a
detention order includes the valuable right to its expeditious
consideration and the prompt communication of the decision to the
detenu. Failure to communicate the decision, or an inordinate delay in
its consideration, inherently vitiates the order and renders the continued
detention illegal. In this context, reference may be made to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sarabjeet Singh Mokha
vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others, (2021) 20 SCC 98″,
wherein it has been held that delay in disposal of representation and
failure to communicate the decision strikes at the heart of the
procedural safeguards guaranteed to the detenu and vitiates the
detention. The governing principle is laid down in paragraph 47 of the
judgment. The relevant extract reads as under:
“47. By delaying its decision on the representation, the State
Government deprived the detenu of the valuable right which
emanates from the provisions of Section 8(1) of having the
representation being considered expeditiously. As we have
noted earlier, the communication of the grounds of detention to
the detenu “as soon as may be” and the affording to the detenu
of the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the
order of detention to the appropriate government are intended to
ensure that the representation of the detenu is considered by the
appropriate government with a sense of immediacy. The State
Government failed to do so. The making of a reference to theLPA No.159/2025 4|Page
Advisory Board could not have furnished any justification for
the State Government not to deal with the representation
independently at the earliest. The delay by the State Government
in disposing of the representation and by the Central and State
Governments in communicating such rejection, strikes at the
heart of the procedural rights and guarantees granted to the
detenu. It is necessary to understand that the law provides for
such procedural safeguards to balance the wide powers granted
to the executive under the NSA. The State Government cannot
expect this Court to uphold its powers of subjective satisfaction
to detain a person, while violating the procedural guarantees of
the detenu that are fundamental to the laws of preventive
detention enshrined in the Constitution.”
9. We have also examined the judgment rendered by the learned Writ
Court and find that the aforesaid crucial aspect has not been properly
adverted to. As such, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
10. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The judgment rendered by
the learned Writ Court is set aside. Consequently, the order of detention
bearing No. No. PSA-02 of 2024 dated 09.11.2024, issued by
respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Doda is quashed. The appellant is
directed to be released from custody forthwith, provided he is not
required in any other case.
11. The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the
respondent.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU
21.05.2026
Karam Chand
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: No
LPA No.159/2025 5|Page
