Srinagar, Oct 28, KDC: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has observed that the statutory Advisory Board is meant to act as a vigilant “watchdog” rather than a “mere Post-Office” that rubber-stamps government orders.
A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti made these observations while quashing the detention of a Rajouri resident under the stringent Public Safety Act (PSA), after the Court found a fundamental procedural flaw that the detaining authority committed and the Advisory Board completely failed to detect.
The case arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by Shakoor Ahmed, a 39-year-old resident of Thanamandi in Rajouri district, challenging his preventive detention. Ahmed was taken into custody on July 13, 2026, following a detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Rajouri, on the basis of a police dossier citing three FIRs against him, including cases involving allegations under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, brought a glaring procedural omission to the Court’s attention. While the formal notice issued by the DM informed Ahmed of his right to make a representation against his detention to the Government, it completely omitted apprising him of his constitutional right to submit a representation directly to the detaining authority itself (the DM).
Perusing the official records and the receipt of the detention warrant, Justice Bharti termed this a “fundamental flaw” in the procedural compliances required for executing a preventive detention. The Court then directed its ire at the PSA Advisory Board—the statutory body tasked with reviewing such detentions—for clearing Ahmed’s case on July 29, 2026, without spotting this patent illegality on the official record.
Coming down heavily on the statutory body, Justice Bharti observed,”This Court is taken by serious concern that how could Advisory Board under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 omit such a patent omission obtaining on record with respect to the preventive detention custody of the petitioner.”
“Advisory Board is not meant to be a mere Post-Office like authority of getting a case of a preventive detention of a person on its [table] and doling out a favorable opinion report for enabling confirmation of the preventive detention of a detenue,” the High Court observed. “The purpose of Advisory Board is that of filtration which this Court is sad to observe is being reckoned as a free passage for the detention orders to arrive on the table of detention order confirmation authority,” the court said.
The High Court also firmly rejected the argument that the detenue must prove he suffered actual “prejudice” due to this lack of information.
“When it is a matter of loss of fundamental right to personal liberty, doctrine of prejudice is not meant to be confronted to a person suffering the loss of fundamental right to personal liberty by being in confinement and custody without having suffered any conviction for commission of offence/s by a criminal court of law,” Justice Bharti observed.
Declaring the detention illegal due to the procedural breach, the High Court quashed the DM’s July 2026 detention order as well as the subsequent government confirmations, directing the Superintendent of District Jail, Poonch, to set the petitioner free forthwith. (KDC)
