Early Times Report
Jammu/Srinagar, July 24: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld three separate preventive detention orders under the Public Safety Act, ruling that constitutional courts cannot substitute their opinion for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority when the detention is supported by relevant material and all statutory safeguards have been followed.
In the first case, Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the petition filed by Showkat Ahmad Chopan challenging the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, on May 3, 2025, to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State.
The petitioner alleged that the detention grounds were vague, no fresh activity had been attributed to him after his release on bail, and the complete relied-upon material had not been supplied to enable him to make an effective representation. The Court, however, found that Chopan had received 49 leaves, including the detention warrant, grounds of detention, notice, police dossier and other relevant documents. English and Urdu versions of the grounds and dossier were also supplied along with copies of the FIR, disclosure memo, recovery memo, arrest memo, witness statements and bonds.
The Court further noted allegations that Chopan continued to assist active Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorists, particularly an alleged commander named Asif Sheikh, even after his release on bail. He was also taken into preventive custody in March and October 2024 and released after furnishing bonds.
Holding that the record disclosed specific and recent allegations of activities prejudicial to State security, Justice Dhar declined to interfere with the detention.
Advocate G.N. Shaheen appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate Jahingeer Dar represented the Union Territory.
In another judgment, Justice Shahzad Azeem upheld the third successive PSA detention of Musavir Nabi Bhat, rejecting the argument that the fresh order was merely based on grounds already considered in two earlier detention orders quashed by the High Court.
The first detention order had been set aside in September 2024 for non-supply of material, while the second was quashed in December 2025 after the Court found that the grounds were largely a replica of the police dossier and lacked a live and proximate link with the alleged activities.
The Court held that the quashing of earlier detention orders does not prohibit the authorities from passing a fresh order when new, dated and proximate material becomes available.
The detention record showed that Bhat was bound down under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on January 20 and 22, 2026. The developments were entered in the beat book of Police Station Khanyar on January 23, six days before the fresh detention order.
The authorities had also relied upon field inputs alleging that he had resumed activities prejudicial to security and was communicating with handlers through encrypted devices.
Justice Azeem held that the police action and beat-book entry constituted fresh and verifiable material providing a live link between the alleged activity and the detention order.
The Court further noted that the detenue had received 84 leaves of material, which had been explained to him in Urdu and Kashmiri. He was also informed of his right to make a representation to the Government and the detaining authority.
Once the requirements of the PSA and Article 22(5) of the Constitution had been complied with, the Court observed, it could not sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority.
Advocate Nida Nazir represented the petitioner, while Advocate Haris Khan, appearing vice Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin S. Qadiri, represented the Government.
In the third case, Justice Rajnesh Oswal upheld the detention of Arjun Kumar, described by the authorities as an alleged member of the organised criminal “Khauf Gang”.
The District Magistrate, Jammu, had ordered his detention on September 12, 2025, to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order.
The Government cited six FIRs and six Daily Diary Reports involving allegations of attempt to murder, assault and the use of illegal firearms and sharp-edged weapons.
Particular reliance was placed on an incident near Tube Well, Alawal Chak, where two motorcycle-borne persons allegedly opened indiscriminate fire on a police patrol on January 31, 2025. The accused were apprehended after the police retaliated, and illegal firearms and live cartridges were allegedly recovered.
Rejecting the claim that the incident involved only law and order, the Court held that firing upon police personnel could spread fear and insecurity and send “shockwaves of terror” through society.
Such conduct, the Court observed, transcends an ordinary crime and directly affects public order.
The Bench also rejected the argument that the detention order was mechanical merely because the police dossier and detention order carried the same date. Identical dates alone, it ruled, cannot establish non-application of mind when the record reflects independent scrutiny.
The Court found that the detenue had received 155 leaves, including the detention warrant, notice, grounds, dossier and other documents. The material had been read over in English and explained in Hindi and Dogri.
Finding no violation of constitutional or procedural safeguards, Justice Oswal dismissed the petition and upheld the detention order.
Advocate Nikhil Choudhary appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General P.D. Singh represented the Union Territory. (JNF) |
