Srinagar, July 3, KDC: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a Budgam man under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act after holding that the authorities failed to place his representation before the Advisory Board, with Justice Rahul Bharti observing that the District Magistrate acted “at his own leisure” while the Home Department also acted “with leisure” in dealing with the detenue’s statutory plea.
Allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat through his father, the Court held that this procedural lapse alone was sufficient to invalidate the detention order, without examining the remaining grounds raised in the petition. The Court directed that the detenue be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
The detention had been ordered by the District Magistrate, Budgam, on the basis of a police dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam, alleging that the petitioner was involved in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and had links with the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba. The order was subsequently approved by the Government and confirmed following the opinion of the Advisory Board.
During the proceedings, the petitioner contended that his father had submitted a representation before the District Magistrate on May 7, 2025 seeking revocation of the detention, but it was never considered. Court records showed that the representation had indeed been received in the office of the District Magistrate on that date.
Justice Rahul Bharti found that despite receiving the representation, the District Magistrate failed to immediately forward it either to the Advisory Board or to the Home Department. The Court noted that the Advisory Board itself recorded in its opinion that “no representation seems to have been made by the petitioner as no such representation is lying on the material placed before us,” demonstrating that the detenue’s plea had never reached the Board for consideration.
The court further records that the District Magistrate forwarded the representation to the Home Department only on May 15, eight days after receiving it, describing the authority as having acted “at his own leisure.” Justice Bharti also held that the Home Department acted “with leisure” by failing to immediately place the representation before the Advisory Board even though the Board had not yet submitted its opinion.
The Court observed that this lapse struck at the heart of the procedural safeguards governing preventive detention and constituted a fatal defect in the detention process. Since the detenue’s representation was not placed before the Advisory Board before it rendered its opinion, the statutory protection available to a person detained under the Public Safety Act stood defeated.
Justice Rahul Bharti also noted inconsistencies in the detention record regarding whether the petitioner had been informed of his right to make a representation before the District Magistrate. While the execution report suggested that he had only been informed of his right to approach the Government, subsequent official communications and the Advisory Board’s report indicated otherwise, exposing contradictions within the official record.
Holding that the procedural defect was sufficient to invalidate the detention, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order along with its subsequent approval and confirmation, and directed the jail authorities to release the petitioner forthwith unless he was required in any other case. (KDC)
