Srinagar, Nov 6, KDC: The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court has upheld the preventive detention of Shaista Maqbool, accused of being an “Overground Worker” (OGW) and admirer of the banned terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The court dismissed her appeal against the Public Safety Act (PSA) order, observing that her alleged activities were prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory.
A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal found no merit in Maqbool’s challenge, ruling that the District Magistrate, Bandipora, had issued the detention order after due consideration and that all procedural safeguards were followed. “The sufficiency of the grounds cannot be agitated before the court,” the bench said, according to news agency Kashmir Dot Com (KDC), upholding the District Magistrate’s satisfaction that preventive detention was necessary.
According to the PSA dossier, Shaista was not only in close contact with Lashkar operatives but also had a “love affair” with terrorist Musaib Lakhvi, the nephew of Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, co-founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba and one of the masterminds of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Before his death, Musaib reportedly remained active between 2016 and 2018, carrying out multiple terrorist attacks in Hajin and Sumbal areas of north Kashmir.
The dossier, according to news agency Kashmir Dot Com, further reveals that Shaista maintained contact with several local and foreign terrorists and was known among them by various pseudo names, including “Choti Behan.” She allegedly operated a Facebook account under the ID “Lakhvi Musaib”, through which terrorists frequently communicated with her. Following Musaib’s death, she allegedly established links with Pakistan-based handlers Abu Zehran and Abu Hans, providing them information about the movement of political leaders and protected persons through encrypted social media applications and VPNs.
Authorities stated that her activities were “covert and clandestine,” making detection difficult for law enforcement agencies. The dossier noted that Maqbool was taking direct instructions from LeT handlers to “facilitate the job of terrorists,” including involvement in planning or assisting killings.
In its judgment, the bench also cited the Supreme Court’s observations in Joyi Kitty Joseph vs. Union of India (2025 INSC 327), emphasising that the formation of an opinion about detention lies solely with the authorised authority.
“The formation of the opinion about detention rests with the Government or the officer authorised. Their satisfaction is all that the law speaks of and the courts are not constituted an Appellate Authority,” the court quoted from the apex court’s ruling. It further noted that while courts do not review the sufficiency of the grounds for detention, the decision must be made with “the greatest circumspection” to avoid errors.
Citing this precedent, the High Court reiterated that judicial review cannot substitute the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority unless the order is issued without due consideration. Since, in this case, the record showed detailed examination and justification, the court refused to interfere.
The High Court, after reviewing the detention record and the findings of the Advisory Board, held that her detention under the Public Safety Act, 1978 was legally sound. Dismissing the appeal, the bench said the grounds of detention were neither vague nor ambiguous and concluded that “ordinary law was insufficient to prevent the detenue from her nefarious activities.” (KDC)
