Jammu, Feb 16, KDC: Recording the petitioner’s specific plea that he had given an interview on a social media news portal alleging “widespread and rampant deforestation in the forest area of Bhaderwah Division at the behest of forest officials,” the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a Doda resident under the Public Safety Act (PSA).
Justice Rajesh Sekhri, while allowing a habeas corpus petition, set aside Detention Order No. PSA/02 of 2025 dated March 12, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Doda under Section 8(1)(a-1) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. The Court, according to news agency Kashmir Dot Com directed that the detenue, Bilal Ahmed (40), son of Bashir Ahmed Wani, resident of Tanta, Doda, be released forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case.
In the judgment, the Court specifically noted the petitioner’s allegation that he had given an interview on a social media platform (referred to as “KK Portal page handle”) highlighting rampant tree felling and deforestation in the Bhaderwah forest area under the command of certain forest officials.
The Court further observed that in their counter affidavit, the respondents did not specifically deny the allegation regarding the interview, but merely stated that the detention was based on illegal activities detailed in the dossier. The Court remarked that an evasive reply to specific allegations may amount to admission.
The detention had been ordered on the basis of a dossier submitted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhaderwah, alleging that the petitioner was involved in timber smuggling and illegal felling of trees. Two FIRs and forest damage cases were cited, and authorities claimed his activities were harmful to forests, biodiversity, and environmental health.
However, the Court examined whether such allegations constituted disturbance of “public order” — a necessary requirement under preventive detention law.
The High Court reiterated the settled legal distinction between “law and order” and “public order,” observing that while individual criminal acts may attract ordinary criminal law, they do not automatically amount to disturbance of public order warranting preventive detention.
The Court found that the allegations relating to felling of trees and timber smuggling did not fall within the ambit of public order.
Significantly, the Court also found that the petitioner’s representation, received on May 29, 2025, was decided only on July 16, 2025 — after a delay of 45 days — without any satisfactory explanation from the authorities.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents including K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India and Vijay Kumar v. State of J&K, the Court held that unexplained delay in considering a representation violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Holding that the impugned detention order did not sustain in law, the Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released forthwith, subject to his involvement in any other case.
