Jammu, Oct 22, KDC: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has summoned the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, for personal appearance to explain the circumstances in which a preventive detention order was passed against Zubair Amin Bangroo, observing that the order prima facie raised serious concerns regarding the application of mind by the detaining authority.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while hearing a habeas corpus petition challenging Bangroo’s detention, flagged several inconsistencies in the grounds of detention and questioned whether the authority had independently assessed the material before curtailing the petitioner’s personal liberty.
The Deputy Commissioner has been directed to appear before the court on October 22, 2026, along with the complete original record, including the police dossier and material reflecting the consideration and subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
The petition challenges the detention order issued against Bangroo on allegations concerning his purported association with terrorist elements and activities allegedly prejudicial to the security of the State.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations were vague and general and lacked the material particulars necessary to establish a clear connection between the detenue and the alleged activities.
Upon a preliminary examination of the detention grounds and submissions, the High Court observed that there was considerable force in the contention that the grounds lacked the specificity and particularity required to justify the deprivation of personal liberty.
“The gravity of an allegation, by itself, cannot substitute the requirement of relevant material and an independent application of mind,” the court observed.
The court noted that the detention grounds did not disclose the identity of the terrorist with whom the petitioner was allegedly associated, nor did they identify the terrorist network or its associates with whom he purportedly remained in contact.
It further observed that the grounds did not specify the alleged hideouts, locations or incidents relating to the purported provision of logistical and moral support to terrorists. The specific acts attributed to the detenue and their demonstrable connection with activities prejudicial to the security of the State were also not adequately explained.
A key concern raised by the court was the use of the expression “aforementioned terrorists” in the second paragraph of the grounds of detention, where Bangroo was accused of providing logistical and moral support to terrorists and allowing them to use his residence and other safe places as hideouts.
The High Court pointed out that the preceding portion of the grounds did not identify any terrorist. The first paragraph contained only a formal recital regarding the detaining authority’s application of mind, without naming or identifying any terrorist.
Describing the discrepancy as a significant internal inconsistency, the court observed that the wording strongly suggested that the relevant portion of the detention grounds might have been mechanically lifted from the police dossier without the necessary independent application of mind.
The court clarified that a police dossier could form the basis for consideration by the competent authority, but it could not replace the authority’s obligation to independently examine the material, assess its relevance and arrive at its own subjective satisfaction in accordance with law.
Emphasising the constitutional protections available to individuals, the High Court observed that preventive detention involves the deprivation of personal liberty without a regular criminal trial and, therefore, requires the highest degree of constitutional responsibility and procedural diligence.
“The safeguards embodied in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India are not empty formalities,” the court observed, stressing that the detaining authority must independently satisfy itself that the statutory requirements for detention have been fulfilled.
The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Vijay Narain Singh versus State of Bihar, which underscored that preventive detention laws must be strictly construed and personal liberty cannot be jeopardised unless the case falls within the scope of the applicable law.
It further clarified that the absence of a criminal case, by itself, may not determine the validity of a preventive detention order. However, the authority must demonstrate that the statutory requirements have been independently and lawfully satisfied.
Observing that the matter required an explanation from the official responsible for passing the impugned order, Justice Nargal directed the Deputy Commissioner to appear personally with the complete original record.
The matter is scheduled to be taken up on today, when the court is expected to examine the explanation and the relevant records.
The court clarified that its observations at this stage are preliminary and arise from the consideration of the detention challenge. (KDC)
