Srinagar, Sept 2, KDC: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on Wednesday quashed the preventive detention of an Awantipora resident under the Public Safety Act (PSA), ruling that general apprehensions surrounding sensitive public events such as the Amarnath Yatra cannot substitute for specific material connecting an individual to a state security threat.
Allowing a habeas corpus petition, a Bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary set aside detention order No. 33/DMP/PSA/25 dated July 10, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, against Suhail Fayaz Najar, a resident of Hariparigam, Awantipora, and directed his immediate release from District Jail, Udhampur, if not required in any other case.
The detaining authority had ordered Najar’s preventive detention on the satisfaction that his activities were prejudicial to the security of the State, alleging that he worked as an overground worker (OGW) providing logistic support to banned terrorist outfits Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM).
The police dossier cited his previous involvement in FIR No. 46/2021 registered under Sections 18, 19, 20, and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act at Police Station Awantipora, wherein charges were dropped and he was admitted to bail, as well as subsequent proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The dossier further invoked potential security risks to the annual Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra (SANJAY).
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Najar was employed as a waiter in a hotel, had no fresh allegations leveled against him following his release on bail, and that the detention order was framed on stale, vague grounds without providing him the relied-upon documents in a language he understood.
Rejecting the state’s reliance on broad security concerns, Justice Chowdhary observed, “The sensitivity of the Yatra and the obligation of the State to maintain its peaceful conduct are undoubtedly matters of great importance. However, a general apprehension arising from the sensitive nature of an event cannot substitute for specific material connecting the particular detenue with a threat to the security of the State. The reference of SANJAY was made in the detention order passed on 10.07.2025. Even the next SANJAY, 2026 has also been recently concluded peacefully. Preventive custody is detention of an individual based upon his anticipated future conduct. It cannot be justified merely by pointing to a general security situation or a sensitive public event unless the material before the detaining authority establishes the necessary nexus between the individual and the apprehended threat.”
Examining the requirement of subjective satisfaction under preventive detention laws, the Bench cited Supreme Court rulings reiterating that stale criminal cases cannot sustain preventive custody once the causal link between past conduct and immediate necessity has snapped.
The court noted that mere awareness of a bail order by the detaining authority does not amount to application of mind unless fresh material establishes that the individual continues to pose an active threat post-release.
“The satisfaction to be arrived at by the detaining authority must not be based on irrelevant or invalid grounds. It must be arrived at on the basis of relevant material, material which is not stale and has a live link with the satisfaction of the detaining authority. The order of detention may refer to the previous criminal antecedents only if they have a direct nexus or link with the immediate need to detain an individual,” the Court recorded, citing the Supreme Court precedent in Khaja Bilal Ahmed.
The Bench also found that the administration failed to prove that the detention material was supplied, read over, or explained to the petitioner in a language he could understand, holding that such failure violated constitutional guarantees under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
“Thus, apart from the infirmities noticed, hereinabove, relating to non-application of mind, vagueness of the grounds, absence of a live and proximate link between the alleged past conduct and the necessity for present preventive detention, and non-supply of the relied-upon material, the impugned detention order is also vitiated by failure to demonstrate effective communication of the grounds of detention to the petitioner, in a language understood by him,” the Bench ruled.
Directing his immediate release, the court ordered that a scanned copy of the detention record be returned to counsel for the respondents against proper receipt.
Advocate Waseem Shamas appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate Jehangir Ahmad Dar represented the Union Territory administration. (KDC)
