Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that preventive detention cannot be sustained on the basis of decade-old criminal cases alone, holding that the detaining authority’s “subjective satisfaction” is open to judicial review and must be supported by recent and relevant material.
A single bench of Justice M.A. Chowdhary quashed a detention order issued under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act against Srinagar resident Mohd Ayoub Najar, observing that stale and remote antecedents, in the absence of fresh prejudicial conduct, cannot justify preventive detention.
The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition challenging Detention Order No. DIVCOM/K/125/2025 dated July 15, 2025, issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir.
The detention order was primarily based on two FIRs registered under the NDPS Act in 2014 and 2015. The petitioner contended that there was no live or proximate link between those cases and the detention order passed nearly a decade later, and that no fresh material had been placed on record to warrant preventive detention.
While examining the matter, the Court observed that although the satisfaction of the detaining authority is subjective, it is not immune from judicial scrutiny.
“Though the satisfaction of the detaining authority is subjective, it is not beyond judicial scrutiny. Where the detention order is based upon stale, irrelevant, non-existent or extraneous material, the Court would be justified in interfering,” the Court said.
The Court noted that the principal material relied upon by the authorities related to FIR No. 02/2014 and FIR No. 10/2015, while the detention order was issued in July 2025. The Court found that except for general references to adverse reports, no contemporary or fresh prejudicial activity attributable to the petitioner had been brought on record.
The Court reiterated that preventive detention requires a live and proximate nexus between the alleged prejudicial activities and the need for detention. It held that the decade-long gap between the FIRs and the detention order had snapped that nexus.
“Such remote antecedents, in the absence of any fresh prejudicial conduct, cannot reasonably sustain the subjective satisfaction necessary for preventive detention,” the Court held.
The judgment also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana, wherein it was held that stale criminal antecedents cannot furnish a valid basis for preventive detention unless supported by proximate and compelling material demonstrating the necessity of such action.
The Court further rejected the respondents’ argument that the detention order was justified because all relied-upon material had been supplied to the detenue. It observed that mere supply of documents could not cure the substantive illegality arising from reliance on stale grounds.
“However, mere supply of material does not cure the substantive illegality arising from reliance upon stale grounds. The record does not disclose any fresh incident, recent intelligence input or proximate prejudicial conduct immediately preceding the issuance of the detention order,” the Court observed.
Another factor considered by the Court was the unexplained delay between the detention recommendation and the issuance of the detention order. While the recommendation was made on June 5, 2025, the detention order was passed more than a month later on July 15, 2025.
“No satisfactory explanation for this delay has been forthcoming from the respondents,” the Court noted, observing that unexplained delay may erode the nexus between the alleged activities and the need for preventive detention.
After examining the record, the Court concluded that the detention order was founded on old, stale and remote grounds without any fresh or compelling material.
Holding that the detention order lacked a live and proximate nexus with the object sought to be achieved through preventive detention, the Court quashed the detention order and directed that the detenue be released forthwith, provided he was not required in any other case. (KDC)
