SRINAGAR: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Srinagar Bench has sharply criticised the handling of a preventive detention order by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, describing the actions as lacking due application of mind and calling the resulting order “absurd.”
The case concerns Muzaffar Farooq Mir, a 36-year-old resident of Kashmir, who has been held in detention in Jammu since May 2025 under an order issued under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA). Mir filed a habeas corpus petition in the High Court—Muzaffar Farooq Mir v. Union Territory of J&K and Others—challenging the legality of his detention.
A bench led by Justice Rahul Bharti criticised the way the detention order was drafted and defended, stating that the District Magistrate’s response to the legal challenge merely echoed the original grounds of detention without genuine consideration or differentiation.
The Court observed that the detention order—issued on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police (SSP), who alleged that Mir held “extremist ideology” and promoted anti-national activities—contained significant drafting errors and internal contradictions. One notable error was the incorrect reference to a prior detention order: while the earlier order was from 2022, the Srinagar DM incorrectly recorded the date as 2024, an error the Court said reflected a failure to properly read and reassess even the draft grounds of detention.
Justice Bharti emphasised that what may seem a minor drafting oversight for the Magistrate had serious implications for Mir’s fundamental right to personal liberty, given that preventive detention laws directly curtail individual freedom without trial. The bench also pointed to an “inherent contradiction” in the grounds of detention, such as conflating concerns about maintenance of public order with prejudicial effects on state security—matters the Court said showed a lack of legal distinction and understanding.
Terming the approach a “pedantic level indulgence,” the High Court concluded that the detention order was fundamentally flawed due to a deficient application of mind on the part of the District Magistrate.
As a result, the Court set aside the preventive detention order and ordered Mir’s release, holding that the detention was illegal.
In the proceedings, Advocate Sania Ghulam represented the petitioner, while Government Advocate Jahingir Dar appeared on behalf of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.
