Srinagar, July 31, KDC: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on Friday quashed three preventive detention orders issued under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), saying that such detention must rest on specific, recent and relevant material and cannot be sustained on vague allegations or stale incidents.
In separate judgments, according to news agency Kashmir Dot Com, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi and Justice Sanjay Dhar directed the release of the three detenues, subject to their not being required in any other case.
In one case, Justice Kazmi quashed the preventive detention of a Pulwama resident, holding that the order was founded on an FIR registered in 2022 despite the detenue having been granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board on January 1, 2025. The court noted that the authorities had not attributed any fresh prejudicial activity to him after his release on bail.
Holding that the detention was based on “stale grounds”, the court said the detaining authority had failed to arrive at the requisite subjective satisfaction that preventive detention was immediately necessary. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it observed that preventive detention cannot be justified on outdated material that lacks a live and proximate nexus with the present need for detention.
In the second case, Justice Dhar set aside the detention of a Baramulla resident after finding that the grounds of detention were too vague to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention, a safeguard guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The detention order alleged that the detenue had provided logistical support to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militants, maintained contact with overground workers (OGWs) and facilitated militant movement. However, the court noted that it disclosed neither the identities of the alleged militants or OGWs, nor the places or time period relating to the allegations.
The court further found that the detention relied entirely on incidents dating back to 2018, with no reference to any recent activity. Holding that stale incidents cannot sustain preventive detention, Justice Dhar ruled that the necessary live link between past conduct and the need for detention had snapped.
In the third case, Justice Dhar quashed the detention of a Srinagar resident after finding that the allegations against him also lacked material particulars. The detention order claimed that he had established contact with militants and OGWs of The Resistance Front (TRF), provided logistical support and motivated local youth to join militant ranks. However, it failed to specify the identities of those persons, the places where the alleged activities occurred or when they had taken place.
The court held that such vague allegations deprived the detenue of his constitutional right to effectively challenge the detention, rendering the order legally unsustainable.
Across the three rulings, the High Court stressed that preventive detention under the PSA is an exceptional measure that must be supported by concrete and proximate material demonstrating an immediate necessity to detain a person. It held that reliance on vague allegations, absence of material particulars and stale incidents vitiates the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction, rendering such detention orders liable to be quashed. (KDC)
