Srinagar, July 9, KDC: Holding that repeated violations of mining laws and environmental regulations do not by themselves constitute activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of an Anantnag resident under the Public Safety Act, observing that the State must prosecute such offences under ordinary criminal law instead of resorting to preventive detention.
Justice Rahul Bharti passed the judgment while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Amir Ahmad Wani, who had been detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act pursuant to an order issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, on August 5, 2025. The detention was based on a dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag, alleging that Wani was repeatedly involved in illegal riverbed sand extraction in violation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act despite earlier police action, environmental regulations and the registration of a criminal case against him.
Examining the grounds of detention, the Court held that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not satisfy the legal requirement of being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the statutory foundation for invoking preventive detention under the PSA.
Justice Bharti observed that “howsoever brazen the act of the petitioner may be related to violation of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, the same cannot qualify as being prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order.” The Court held that the appropriate course available to the authorities was to prosecute the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or other applicable penal laws, secure a conviction through due process and impose punishment in accordance with law.
The Court further observed that a criminal conviction followed by imprisonment serves as a lawful deterrent not only to the offender but also to others who may indulge in similar unlawful activities, making preventive detention an impermissible substitute for ordinary criminal prosecution in such cases.
The judgment also noted that the District Magistrate had substantially reproduced the police dossier while recording subjective satisfaction for ordering preventive detention. The Court observed that the detention order was founded on allegations relating to violations of mining laws rather than any material demonstrating a threat to public order.
Holding that the detention order lacked the legal foundation necessary to sustain preventive detention under the Public Safety Act, the High Court quashed the detention order along with the subsequent approval and confirmation orders issued by the Government and directed the immediate release of the petitioner from custody, provided he was not required in any other case. (KDC)
