Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Through Mother Sapna Mattoo vs 4. Jail Superintendent District Jail on 13 July, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2065
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
HCP No.149/2025
CM No.6660/2025
Reserved on: 09.07.2026
Pronounced on:13.07.2026
Uploaded on: 13.07.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Alex Mattoo
S/O Kenny Mattoo
R/O Teli Basti Bari Brahmana
Tehsil Bari Brahmana District Samba
A/p District Jail, Poonch
Through mother Sapna Mattoo
...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Pawan K. Kundal Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sahil Verma, Advocate.
Vs.
1. UT of Jammu & Kashmir through
Commissioner/Secretary, Home Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. District Magistrate, Samba.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Samba.
4. Jail Superintendent District Jail, Poonch
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA
CORAM: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Vide detention Order No. 06/PSA of 2025 dated 16.09.2025
(for short ‘impugned order’) passed by respondent No.2-
District Magistrate, Samba, the petitioner was ordered to be
detained under preventive custody in terms of Section 8 of
J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’) with a view
HCP No.149/2025 Page 1 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2065
to prevent him from acting in any manner which is highly
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace.
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the
quashment of the aforesaid order of detention, inter alia, on
the grounds that the detenue was not furnished with the
material and other relevant documents relied upon by the
detaining authority, nor were the same read over and
explained to him in a language understood by him, thereby
depriving him of an effective opportunity to make a
meaningful representation; that the detenue was not informed
of his valuable right to submit a representation before the
competent authority, resulting in a serious infringement of his
constitutional and statutory safeguards; that the family
members of the detenue was not informed about the detention
of the petitioner; that the detaining authority has not recorded
any compelling reasons or cogent material to justify the
preventive detention despite the fact that the detenue was
already in custody.
3. Pursuant to the notices issued by this Court, respondent No.
2-District Magistrate, Samba, has filed a detailed counter
affidavit vehemently opposing the writ petition. It is
contended that, having regard to the prejudicial activities of
the detenue, the impugned order of preventive detention was
passed with a view to preventing him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; that
HCP No.149/2025 Page 2 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2065
after perusal of the material records submitted by the SSP,
Samba and after application of mind carefully, subjective
satisfaction has been drawn by the detaining authority that
the criminal activities of the detenue pose a threat to the
maintenance of public order; that each and every norm has
been followed while detaining the detneue under the Public
Safety Act.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention
record produced by learned counsel for the respondents and
considered.
5. The detaining authority, before invoking the preventive
detention, discussed various grounds for detention,
incorporating that the detenue has been involved in a number
of criminal activities, and as many as ten FIRs bearing FIR No.
50/2022, 18/2023, 46/2023, 64/2023, 70/2023, 36/2024,
75/2024, 88/2024, 169/025 and 106/2025 have been
registered against the detenue; that the activities of the
detenue are very harmful and highly prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order and peace; that the detenue
poses a serious threat to the maintenance of public order and
the safety of law abiding citizens particularly due to his
repeated indulgence in criminal activities.
6. Perusal of the grounds of detention would indicate that the
detenue is an incorrigible offender who has consistently
remained involved in unlawful and anti-social activities that
HCP No.149/2025 Page 3 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2065
are gravely prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It
is further asserted that upon careful examination of the
material on record, the detaining authority is of the
considered opinion that the activities of the detenue are
gravely prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the
said activities of the detenue persuaded the detaining
authority in order to curb his activities to order detention of
the detenue under the provisions of Public Safety Act.
7. The first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the detenue was neither furnished with the
material and other relevant documents relied upon by the
detaining authority nor were the contents thereof read over
and explained to him in a language understood by him,
thereby depriving him of an effective opportunity to make a
meaningful representation against the order of detention. The
said contention also is equally devoid of merit. A perusal of
the detention record reveals that, at the time of execution of
the impugned detention order, as many as 94 leaves
comprising the grounds of detention and all the relevant
material relied upon by the detaining authority were duly
supplied to the detenue against proper receipt. The record
further reflects that the contents of the detention order and
the accompanying material were read over to the detenue in
English and explained to him in Hindi/Dogri, the languages
understood by him, and that he acknowledged the receipt
HCP No.149/2025 Page 4 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2065
thereof by affixing his signatures. Thus, the said contention is
wholly misconceived and devoid of any merit, and
consequently deserves to be rejected.
8. The second contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that
the detenue was not informed of his valuable right to submit a
representation against the order of detention before the
competent authority. The contention cannot be accepted. The
Execution Report, which forms part of the detention record,
clearly demonstrates that the detenue was duly informed of
his right to make a representation to the Government against
the impugned detention order, if he so desired. The official
record, therefore, completely belies the petitioner’s plea.
Consequently, the contention is found to be wholly
misconceived and devoid of any merit.
9. Third ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the family member of the detenue was not informed
about the detention of the petitioner. From the perusal of the
record, it transpires that vide communication No.
DMS/JC/PSA/25-26/76-80 father of the detenue, namely,
Kenny Matoo was informed regarding the detention of the
deteue under the provisions of Section 8 of the Jammu and
Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. In the said order, it has also
been mentioned that grounds of detention would be furnished
to detenue and that against the impugned detention order.
HCP No.149/2025 Page 5 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2065
10. Fourth ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the detaining authority has not recorded any compelling
reasons or relied upon cogent material to justify the order of
preventive detention despite the detenue already being in
custody cannot be accepted. The record discloses that the
detaining authority was fully aware of the fact that the
detenue was in judicial custody at the time of passing the
detention order. The grounds of detention reflect due
consideration of the relevant material and record the
satisfaction that there existed a real possibility of the detenue
being released on bail and, upon such release, indulging in
activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The
detaining authority has, therefore, recorded sufficient and
compelling reasons warranting the order of preventive
detention. Accordingly, the said contention is devoid of merit
and stands rejected.”
11. Right of personal liberty is a most precious right guaranteed
under the Constitution of India. A person is not to be deprived
of his personal liberty, except in accordance with procedures
established under law and the procedure as laid down in the
case “Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978 AIR SC
597)”, is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be
curtailed where a person faces a criminal charge or is
convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment.
Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is
HCP No.149/2025 Page 6 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2065
temporarily deprived of his personal liberty owing to criminal
charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend
himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case prosecution
fails to bring home his guilt. Where such person is convicted
of offence, he still has satisfaction of having been given
adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce
evidence in his defense.
12. Framers of the Constitution, however, have, by incorporating
Article 22(5) in the Constitution, left room for detention of a
person without a formal charge and trial and without such
person being held guilty of an offence and sentenced to
imprisonment by a competent court. Its aim and object are to
save society from activities that are likely to deprive a large
number of people of their right to life and personal liberty. In
such a case it would be dangerous, for the people at large, to
wait and watch as by the time ordinary law is set into motion,
the person, having dangerous designs, would execute his
plans, exposing general public to risk and causing colossal
damage to life and property. It is, for that reason, necessary to
take preventive measures and prevent a person bent upon to
perpetrate mischief from translating his ideas into action.
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, therefore, leaves
scope for enactment of preventive detention law.
13. Referring to the observations made by the Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘The State of Bombay v.
HCP No.149/2025 Page 7 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2065
Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya AIR 1951 SC 157‟ would be
advantageous. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment lays law on
the point, which is profitable to be reproduced hereunder:
“5. It has to be borne in mind that the legislation in
question is not an emergency legislation. The powers
of preventive detention under this Act of 1950 are in
addition to those contained in the Criminal
Procedure Code, where preventive detention is
followed by an inquiry or trial. By its very nature,
preventive detention is aimed at preventing the
commission of an offence or preventing the detained
person from achieving a certain end. The authority
making the order therefore cannot always be in
possession of full detailed information when it
passes the order and the information in its
possession may fall far short of legal proof of any
specific offence, although it may be indicative of a
strong probability of the impending commission of a
prejudicial act. Section a of the Preventive Detention
Act therefore requires that the Central Government
or the State Government must be satisfied with
respect to any person that with a view to preventing
him from acting in any manner prejudicial to (1) the
defence of India, the relations of India with foreign
powers, or the security of India, or (2) the security of
the State or the maintenance of public order, or (3)
the maintenance of supplies and services essential
to the community ……… it is necessary So to do,
make an order directing that such person be
detained. According to the wording of section 3,
therefore, before the Government can pass an order
of preventive detention it must be satisfied with
respect to the individual person that his activities
are directed against one or other of the three objects
mentioned in the section, and that the detaining
authority was satisfied that it was necessary to
prevent him from acting in such a manner. TheHCP No.149/2025 Page 8 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2065wording of the section thus clearly shows that it is
the satisfaction of the Central Government or the
State Government on the point which alone is
necessary to be established. It is significant that
while the objects intended to be defeated are
mentioned, the different methods, acts or omissions
by which that can be done are not mentioned, as it is
not humanly possible to give such an exhaustive list.
The satisfaction of the Government however must be
based on some grounds. There can be no satisfaction
if there are no grounds for the same. There may be a
divergence of opinion as to whether certain grounds
are sufficient to bring about the satisfaction
required by the section. One person may think one
way, another the other way. If, therefore, the
grounds on which it is stated that the Central
Government or the State Government was satisfied
are such as a rational human being can consider
connected in some manner with the objects which
were to be prevented from being attained, the
question of satisfaction except on the ground of
mala fides cannot be challenged in a court. Whether
in a particular case the grounds are sufficient or
not, according to the opinion of any person or body
other than the Central Government or the State
Government, is ruled out by the wording of the
section. It is not for the court to sit in the place of
the Central Government or the State Government and
try to deter- mine if it would have come to the same
conclusion as the Central or the State Government.
As has been generally observed, this is a matter for
the subjective decision of the Government and that
cannot be substituted by an objective test in a court
of law. Such detention orders are passed on
information and materials which may not be strictly
admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act in a
court, but which the law, taking into consideration
the needs and exigencies of administration, has
allowed to be considered sufficient for the subjective
decision of the Government.”
HCP No.149/2025 Page 9 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2065
14. In accordance with the legal position, afore-stated, settled by
the Six-Judge Constitution Bench way back in the year
1951, the scope of looking into the manner in which the
subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the detaining authority,
is limited. This Court, while examining the material, which is
made basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority, would not act as a court of appeal and find fault
with the satisfaction on the ground that on the basis of the
material before detaining authority another view was possible.
15. The courts do not even go into the questions as to whether the
facts mentioned in the grounds of detention are correct or
false. The reason for the rule is that to decide this, evidence
may have to be taken by the courts and that it is not the
policy of the law of preventive detention. This matter lies
within the competence of the advisory board.
16. Those who are responsible for national security or for
maintenance of public order must be the sole judges of what
the national security, public order or security of the State
requires. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to
society. The object is not to punish a man for having done
something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent
him from doing. Justification for such detention is suspicion
or reasonable probability and not criminal conviction, which
can only be warranted by legal evidence. Thus, any preventive
measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship
HCP No.149/2025 Page 10 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2065
upon individuals, as held by the Supreme Court in the case
„Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration & Ors., AIR 1982
SC 1143‟, do not contribute in any way of the nature of
punishment.
17. Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to
punish a man for having done something but to intercept and
to prevent him from doing so, the Supreme Court held in the
case “Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India & Ors., 2005
(8) SCC 276″, and reiterated in the judgment in a case titled
“Union of India & Anr. v. Dimple Happy Dhakad (AIR 2019
SC 3428)” that an order of detention is not a curative or
reformative or punitive, but a preventive action, acknowledged
object of which being to prevent anti-social and subversive
elements from endangering the welfare of the country or
security of the nation or from disturbing public tranquility or
from indulging in anti-national activities or smuggling
activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances, etc. Preventive detention is
devised to afford protection to society. Rulings on the subject
have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is
devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to
punish a man for having done something but to intercept
before he does it and to prevent him from doing so.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal
position, impugned detention order is upheld and the petition
HCP No.149/2025 Page 11 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2065
is found devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed
along-with pending application(s).
19. Original record, as produced, be returned to learned counsel
for respondents.
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
13.07.2026
Naresh/Secy.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
HCP No.149/2025 Page 12 of 12
