DATE: 17.07.2026
COURT: High Court of Jammu, Kashmir and
Ladakh
BENCH: Justice Sanjay Dhar
FACTS:
The case arose from a
writ petition challenging Order No. 03/DMS/PSA of 2025 dated 28 April 2025,
issued by the District Magistrate, Shopian, whereby the petitioner, Zahid Ahmad
Mir, was placed under preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public
Safety Act (PSA) to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the
security of the Union Territory. The petitioner assailed the detention order on
several grounds, contending that it had been passed without proper application
of mind, that the grounds of detention were vague and lacking in material
particulars, and that no fresh prejudicial activity had been attributed to him
after he had been released on bail in FIR No. 97/2022. He further alleged that
the entire material relied upon by the detaining authority had not been
supplied to him, thereby depriving him of his constitutional right to make an
effective representation against his detention.
The respondents
defended the detention by asserting that the petitioner was a hardcore Over
Ground Worker (OGW) associated with Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen, who
had facilitated the activities of these militant organisations and maintained
contact with a jailed OGW through encrypted social media platforms. They
contended that all statutory and constitutional safeguards had been complied
with, that the grounds of detention and supporting material had been supplied
and explained to the detenue, and that he had been informed of his right to
submit a representation. The detention order was principally founded on
allegations arising out of FIR No. 97/2022, in which the petitioner was accused
of conspiring with other OGWs to attack non-local labourers. However, it was
undisputed that the petitioner had been released on bail by the Juvenile
Justice Board on 16 August 2022 and that he was a juvenile at the time of the
alleged offences.
ISSUES:
The principal issue before the High Court
was whether the preventive detention order passed under the Jammu and Kashmir
Public Safety Act was legally sustainable when it was founded upon allegations
relating to an FIR in which the detenue had already been granted bail and where
no specific or fresh prejudicial activities had been attributed to him
thereafter. The Court was also required to determine whether alleged acts
committed by the petitioner while he was a juvenile could legally constitute
the basis for a subsequent order of preventive detention under the Public
Safety Act.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court allowed the writ petition
and quashed the preventive detention order. The Court held that the detention
order suffered from legal infirmities as it failed to disclose any fresh
prejudicial activity undertaken by the detenue after his release on bail and
was substantially founded upon allegations relating to offences allegedly
committed while he was a juvenile. Consequently, the Court directed that the
petitioner be released from preventive custody forthwith, provided that he was
not required in connection with any other criminal case.
The Court observed
that although the detention order referred to the petitioner's alleged
involvement in FIR No. 97/2022, the grounds of detention failed to disclose any
specific or subsequent activities undertaken by him after his release on bail
on 16 August 2022 that could justify invoking preventive detention. Neither the
grounds of detention nor the detention record contained particulars regarding
the nature, place, or manner of any alleged fresh prejudicial activities. The
Court held that preventive detention cannot be sustained on vague and
generalized allegations unsupported by specific material. Since the detaining
authority had failed to place any evidence demonstrating that the petitioner
had resumed activities prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory after
being enlarged on bail, the subjective satisfaction underlying the detention
order was rendered legally unsustainable. The absence of fresh material severed
the necessary nexus between the petitioner's past conduct and the need for preventive
detention, thereby vitiating the impugned order.
The Court further held
that the detention order was impermissibly founded upon allegations relating to
acts allegedly committed by the petitioner when he was a juvenile. Referring to
the school records placed on record, the Court found that the petitioner's date
of birth established that he was below eighteen years of age at the time of his
arrest in FIR No. 97/2022 and that he had accordingly been granted bail by the
Juvenile Justice Board. Relying upon the Division Bench decision in Tahir Riyaz
Dar v. UT of J&K & Ors. (LPA No. 121/2025), the Court reiterated
that an unlawful act committed by a juvenile cannot permanently stigmatize his
future and cannot subsequently be used as the foundation for preventive
detention under the Public Safety Act, particularly when a juvenile is not
liable to be detained under the Act itself. Since the impugned detention order
rested substantially on allegations arising from the petitioner's juvenile
conduct, the Court concluded that it was contrary to law and liable to be
quashed.
ANALYSIS:
The judgment
reinforces the fundamental constitutional safeguards governing preventive
detention by emphasizing that such extraordinary powers cannot be exercised on
the basis of vague allegations or stale material. The High Court reiterated
that preventive detention is not intended to punish a person for past conduct
but to prevent imminent activities prejudicial to public order or the security
of the State. Consequently, where a detenue has already been released on bail
in a criminal case, the detaining authority must demonstrate the existence of
fresh and specific activities that justify the necessity of preventive
detention. In the present case, the Court found that the detention order merely
reproduced allegations arising from FIR No. 97/2022 without identifying any
subsequent conduct or providing particulars of the petitioner's alleged
post-bail activities. By insisting upon a live and proximate nexus between the
detenue's recent conduct and the need for preventive detention, the Court
reaffirmed that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be
founded upon tangible and contemporaneous material rather than generalized
assertions or unsupported suspicions. The decision therefore serves as an
important safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty under
preventive detention laws.
The judgment is
equally significant for strengthening the protective framework available to
juveniles under Indian law. By holding that allegations relating to acts
committed during juvenility cannot subsequently be used as the basis for
preventive detention under the Public Safety Act, the Court recognized the
rehabilitative philosophy underlying the juvenile justice system. Relying upon
the precedent in Tahir Riyaz Dar v. UT of J&K & Ors., the Court
observed that a juvenile's unlawful conduct cannot permanently stigmatize his
future or justify the invocation of preventive detention once he has attained
majority, particularly when the Public Safety Act itself does not contemplate
detention of juveniles. This approach harmonizes preventive detention
jurisprudence with the principles of the Juvenile Justice framework, which
prioritizes reformation and reintegration over punitive consequences. The
ruling thus strikes an appropriate balance between the State's obligation to
maintain security and the constitutional imperative of protecting individual
liberty, ensuring that preventive detention remains an exceptional measure
grounded in fresh, credible, and legally sustainable material rather than past
allegations committed during childhood.
info@adhwaitha.com