Srinagar, Sept. 4, KDC: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of an academic scholar from Kupwara under the Public Safety Act (PSA), ruling that “mere possession of the books with dispiriting titles does not ipso facto (by that very fact) make the petitioner a criminal” and holding that detaining a citizen because his father was an ex-militant who surrendered over three decades ago is an “unmindful exercise of power.”
Allowing a habeas corpus petition, a Bench of Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi set aside detention order No. 27-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated September 13, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Kupwara, against Shafat Maqbool Wani, a resident of Kukroosa, Vilgam, presently residing at Khanbal, Handwara, and directed his immediate release from preventive custody.
Wani, who was detained on the grounds that his activities were detrimental to state security, challenged the order through his paternal uncle. The detaining authority had cited his involvement in FIR No. 69/2025 registered at Police Station Handwara under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Arms Act, in which the Special NIA Court, Jammu had granted him bail on September 13, 2025, after rejecting an application seeking remand extension beyond 155 days.
The police dossier further cited that Wani was brought up in a family with separatist ideology, pointing out that his father was an ex-militant affiliated with Al-Barq who had surrendered in 1990. The grounds also cited invitations received by Wani to attend international academic conferences at Columbia University and Dublin City University, and claimed that literature seized from him included books allegedly authored by him with titles such as “Construction of an Islamic Order in Hindutva reimagination” and “The saffronization of occupied Kashmir, Demystifing Hindutva Settlers, Colonial Designers.”
Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Zahid Hussain Dar, argued that there was total non-application of mind by the detaining authority. He submitted that aside from the FIR in which he had already obtained bail, no prejudicial activity was attributed to Wani. Counsel also contended that Wani, being an academic scholar, possessed books for literary study, and that the authorities had wrongly claimed he was the author of the seized texts.
Scrutinizing the grounds of detention, Justice Kazmi observed that invoking the background of the petitioner’s father had no legal basis in preventive jurisprudence.
“The only thing that emerges from the perusal of the grounds of detention, and the counter affidavit, filed against the petition in hand, is that the detenue has inculcated a separatist ideology since his childhood, for, his father has been an ex militant having surrendered in the year 1990. The said assertion is delusory and the preventive detention, ordered so conveniently on such imaginary belief, is nothing but an unmindful exercise of power,” the Court observed.
The Bench firmly rejected the administration’s reliance on academic literature and reading material to justify preventive incarceration.
“The alleged anti-national literature shown to have been seized from the detenue has also presumably weighed with the respondents to brand the detenue as an anti-national, however, the said literature has wrongly been attributed to the detenue having been authored by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner is quite justified in submitting that the petitioner, being an academic scholar, is expected to be in possession of variety of literary means, therefore, a mere possession of the books with dispiriting titles does not ipso facto make the petitioner/ detenue a criminal against whom the preventive detention was required to be invoked,” Justice Kazmi said.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, the High Court reiterated that subjective satisfaction must rest on rationally probative material and establish a live link with apprehended conduct, rather than extraneous or imaginary assumptions.
Holding that the detaining authority failed to show any subversive activity warranting preventive arrest, the Court quashed the detention order and directed that the detenue be released forthwith.
Advocate Zahid Hussain Dar appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate Faheem Nisar Shah represented the Union Territory administration. (KDC)
