Srinagar, Sep 15: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has quashed preventive detention of three persons under Public Safety Act (PSA) and ordered their immediate release if their custody was not required in any other criminal case.
Observing that the authorities had failed to comply with constitutional safeguards protecting personal liberty, a bench of Justice M A Chowdhary quashed the detention orders against Subzar Ahmad Ganie of Shopian besides two residents of Anantnag, Firdous Ahmad Dar and Ishfaq Ahmad Wani.
While allowing Ganie’s plea, the Court quashed the December 24, 2025 detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Shopian.
It noted that grounds of detention did not provide specific details of the alleged activities connecting him with terrorist or OGW elements.
Furthermore, the court held that the failure to furnish material relied upon by the detaining authority could deprive a detainee of the meaningful opportunity to make a representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
With regard to Ganie’s representation, the court noted that the same was filed on January 7 this year, but was rejected only on February 24.
The bench held that in keeping with the recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the representations in preventive detention matters must be considered with utmost promptitude.
While dealing with Firdous Ahmad Dar’s plea, the court noted that the authorities had failed to satisfactorily explain the prolonged delay in executing the detention order.
It held that Dar had appeared before a trial court on June 30, 2022, in a criminal case that had itself been relied upon as a basis for his detention.
The authorities also failed to demonstrate that effective measures under Section 12 of the PSA had been taken on the allegation that he was absconding, the court said.
While the court took note of Dar’s acquittal in FIR No 384/2007 in 2018 and the grant of bail in other criminal cases, it observed that relevant intervening developments could not simply be ignored while forming the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention.
In Ishfaq Ahmad Wani’s case, the Court quashed the April 29, 2025 detention order, holding that the authority had failed to meaningfully consider the fact that FIR No 60/2016 had culminated in bail. The court also found substantial similarity between the police dossier and the grounds of detention, raising concerns that the Detaining Authority had merely adopted the police version rather than independently evaluating the material.
While dealing with all the three cases, the court held that preventive detention was an extraordinary and preventive rather than punitive, measure.
Underscoring that courts cannot substitute their own satisfaction for that of the Detaining Authority, the bench noted that judicial review remains available where the satisfaction is based on irrelevant or stale material, there is non-application of mind, the grounds are vague, or constitutional and statutory safeguards are breached.
