Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ubaid Gulzar Pandith vs Ut Of J&K & Another on 8 May, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
2026:JKLHC-SGR:106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 16.04.2026
Pronounced on:08.05.2026
Uploaded on: 08.05.2025
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced:
Full
HCP No.274/2025
UBAID GULZAR PANDITH
...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Mr. S. T. Hussain, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Nida Nazir, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Haarish Khan, Assisting counsel vice
Mr. Mohsin Qadiri Sr. AAG.
Mr. Jahingeer Dar, GA.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has
challenged detention order bearing No.DMS/PSA/30/2025 dated
11.06.2025, issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby the
detenue, namely, Ubaid Gulzar Pandith, has been placed under
preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the
activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
2) It has been contended by the petitioner that the allegations
mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue
and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify
their illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been submitted that
HCP No.274/2025 Page 1 of 5
2026:JKLHC-SGR:106
impugned detention order has been passed without application of
mind as the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and stale, on
the basis of which no prudent man can make a representation against
such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural
safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch
as whole of the material has not been provided to the petitioner. It has
been further urged that there has been non-application of mind on the
part of detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order
as the detenue was already admitted to bail in one of the FIRs
mentioned in the grounds of detention but the said fact is not
mentioned in the grounds of detention and that the representation
submitted by the petitioner against the impugned detention order has
not been considered as no result of consideration has been conveyed to
him.
3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that
the detenue was constantly in contact with the anti-national/anti-
social elements and was greatly influenced by radical ideology and
started instigating local youth to indulge in criminal/anti-national and
anti-social activities. It has been contended that the grounds of
detention are precise, proximate, pertinent and relevant and there is
no vagueness or staleness therein. It has been contended that the
material that formed basis of the grounds of detention has been
furnished to the detenue and he was informed that he has a right to
make a representation to the detaining authority as also to the
government. It has been contended that the impugned order has been
HCP No.274/2025 Page 2 of 5
2026:JKLHC-SGR:106
issued strictly in accordance with the law governing the field.
Respondents have produced the detention record in support of the
assertions made in the counter affidavit.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record
of the case.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of
the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust,
during the course of arguments, was on the ground that the grounds of
detention are vague, cryptic and lacking in material particulars, which
prevented the detenue from making an effective representation against
his detention
6) A perusal of the above quoted extracts of the grounds of
detention clearly shows that the same are vague lacking in material
particulars. In the grounds of detention, there is no mention of the
particulars of the places and the identity of the alleged anti-national
and anti-social elements, with whom the petitioner was in contact. The
particulars of the period when the detenue is alleged to have met these
anti-national and anti-social elements are also not mentioned in the
grounds of detention. Thus, the grounds, being vague lacking in
material particulars, the detenue could not have made an effective
representation against his detention. Article 22(5) mandates that each
ground for detention must be individually specified and not vague,
ensuring transparency and accountability in the detention process. The
grounds must not be vague, indefinite or general. Vague allegations
HCP No.274/2025 Page 3 of 5
2026:JKLHC-SGR:106
make it impossible for the detenu to understand the reasons and
effectively challenge the detention.
7) A Division Bench of this Court in the recent case titled “Imran
Rashid Rather vs. UT of J&K” 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 351 has, while
deliberating upon the effect of vagueness of the grounds of detention
on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, observed as
under:-
“Therefore, this Court holds that vague and non-
specific grounds of detention firstly, violates the
fundamental right to life and personal liberty of the
detenue under article 21 of the constitution as it
summarily curtails the liberty of the citizen based on the
subjective satisfaction of the executive which is an
exceptional power as against the general law relating to
arrest and detention. Secondly, it deprives the detenue
of giving a specific rebuttal to the grounds of detention
which may satisfy the detaining authority or the
Government that his detention is unlawful and compels
him to answer the grounds of detention as “it is
incorrect” or “it is false” etc. Thirdly, vague and
generalised grounds in the order of detention, smacks
of arbitrariness on the part of the detaining authority
rendering the subjective satisfaction arrived at as
violative of article 14 of the constitution and fourthly,
vague and non-specific grounds raise the impression
that the same has been done deliberately in order to
deprive the detenu of giving a precise rebuttal. Malafide
in fact may be difficult to establish as they must be
pleaded with specific facts, but the lack of
bonafides 1State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma,1992 Supp(1)
SCC 222, paragraph 49 – State of Punjab Vs. Gurdial
Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471, paragraph 9 -Pooja Batra Vs.
Union of India and others, (2009) 5 SCC 296, paragraphs
18,40 and 41 may be presumed where the executive act
results in the deprivation of personal liberty from a
detention order based on vague grounds. In such cases,
the lack of bonafides is to be presumed due to a cavalier
or casual exercise of the authority to detain the citizen
without any specific ill will or personal animosity. The
lack of bonafides is on account of failure to take due
care and act without introspection, blindly on the report
of the SP without insisting on supporting material which
justifies the deprivation of liberty.”
HCP No.274/2025 Page 4 of 5
2026:JKLHC-SGR:106
8) From the above analysis of the law, it is manifest that vagueness
of grounds of detention strikes at the root of the subjective satisfaction
of the detaining authority thereby vitiating the order of detention. On
this ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set
aside.
9) For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and the
impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to
release the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, provided
he is not required in connection with any other case.
10) The detention record be returned to learned counsel for the
respondents.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar
08.05.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No
HCP No.274/2025 Page 5 of 5
