Srinagar, Sept. 23, KDC: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has directed the Union Territory administration and police authorities to refrain from detaining three practising advocates under the Public Safety Act (PSA) in connection with an FIR registered against them following an altercation inside the Srinagar District Court complex.
Disposing of a petition, Justice Rajesh Sekhri directed authorities not to invoke preventive detention against the three lawyers, provided they are not involved in any other criminal case.
The petition was moved by advocates Irfan Akbar Malla of Amberpora, Tarzoo Sopore; Umar Mushtaq Mir of Handwara, Kupwara; and Jahangir Ahmad Bhat of Kralpora, Kupwara, seeking to restrain respondents (UT administration) from placing them under preventive detention under the J&K Public Safety Act solely on the basis of FIR No. 27/2026 registered at Police Station Batamaloo.
According to the petitioners, who are practising advocates in the district courts, they were engaged as counsel in a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act titled Urfee Ahad & Ors. v. Khursheed Ahmad Bhat pending before the Court of 4th Additional Munsiff, Srinagar.
The petitioners said that while proceeding towards the office of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) within the court complex to attend mediation proceedings, they were intercepted by the opposite party, Dr. Khursheed Ahmad Bhat.
The plea said that Bhat made derogatory remarks against the deceased mother of petitioner Irfan Akbar Malla, caught hold of his collar, slapped him, and recorded the incident on his mobile phone to coerce them into withdrawing their legal representation.
The petitioners submitted that Bhat subsequently circulated a selectively edited video of the altercation on social media platforms, concealing his initial aggression. While the advocates filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, which is pending adjudication before the 2nd Additional Munsiff, police registered FIR No. 27/2026 under Sections 136 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against the three advocates at Police Station Batamaloo.
Apprehending that authorities might abuse process and invoke the extraordinary powers of the Public Safety Act against them based on the single FIR, the lawyers approached the High Court. They argued that preventive detention cannot serve as a substitute for ordinary penal law, particularly when the isolated dispute is already under investigation, and pointed out that they have no criminal background.
The court had earlier issued notice on March 31, 2026, restraining authorities from detaining the petitioners without prior permission, while asking the petitioners to submit an undertaking before the Registrar Judicial affirming they would not take the law into their own hands.
Taking up the matter for final disposal, Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed that while neither the respondents had filed their response nor the petitioners had submitted the undertaking, the controversy was limited in scope.
Disposing of the petition, the bench ordered,”Be that as it may, having regard to the limited nature of controversy, present petition is taken on board and disposed of with a direction to the respondents to refrain from detaining the petitioners under PSA, provided that they are not involved in any other case/crime, other than FIR No. 27/2026, for offences under Sections 136 and 351(2) BNS.”
Advocate Saleem Gul appeared for the petitioner advocates, while Assisting Counsel Shaila Shameem appeared on behalf of Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri for the Union Territory administration. (KDC)
