Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Thursday quashed a preventive detention order under the Public Safety Act (PSA), ruling that the failure of administrative authorities to forward a detenu’s active representation to the Advisory Board punches a hole in mandatory procedural safeguards and vitiates the entire detention.
Justice Rahul Bharti observed that while the executive branch aggressively invokes state security to justify preventive custody, it cannot bypass foundational constitutional protections by keeping statutory oversight bodies completely in the dark regarding a detenu’s defense.
“The Advisory Board, in its opinion report, has categorically referred to fact that there was no representation made by petitioner… As against the aforesaid fact, the District Magistrate, Pulwama… is on record to say that on 13.05.2025 representation was presented on his behalf by his wife… and still the Advisory Board in its opinion report dated 21.05.2025 was finding no such representation accompanying the file… It is here where the very constitutional right of the petitioner got punctured vitiating the very basis of procedural safety and safeguards,” the Court held.
The Bench made these observations while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Asif Ahmad Dar, a religious preacher from Pulwama who had been detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Pulwama, in April 2025.
The state’s dossier had painted Dar as a highly radicalized element who utilized his position as a Moulvi at the Jamia Masjid in Marvel to deliver highly objectionable sermons regarding Jihad during Friday congregational prayers. The intelligence agencies had further branded him an active over-ground worker (OGW) who regularized logistical infrastructure, food, clothing, and shelter for local militant networks.
The High Court, however, uncovered fatal administrative and procedural lapses upon summoning and thoroughly examining the original official records of the Home Department.
The Bench noted that the police sub-inspector who executed the initial detention warrant failed to explicitly apprise Dar of his statutory right to submit a representation directly to the detaining authority, the District Magistrate, informing him only of his right to approach the government.
More significantly, the official file revealed a stark contradiction between the recorded findings of the J&K Public Safety Advisory Board and actual administrative events on the ground. While the Advisory Board’s final report noted that no defense statement had been placed on record by the detenu, the High Court discovered an official communication from the District Magistrate, Pulwama, dated May 13, 2025, which explicitly acknowledged that Dar’s wife had personally submitted a detailed representation to his office.
Although the District Magistrate had considered and summarily rejected the representation on the same day, his office failed to forward the paperwork to the Home Department or the Advisory Board, rendering the documents completely missing from the file during institutional review.
