Jammu Kashmir High Court Quashes PSA Detention of Anantnag Man, Terms Order ‘Illegal from Inception’ | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a preventive detention order issued under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, against a 28-year-old man from Anantnag, holding that the order was passed without independent application of mind and was illegal from its inception.

Justice Rahul Bharti, while allowing Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) No. 155/2024 titled Shabir Ahmad Dar v Union Territory of JK and Ors, set aside detention Order No 10/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated April 20, 2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, under Section 8 of the PSA. The Court also quashed the subsequent approval and confirmation orders passed by the Government.

The petitioner, Shabir Ahmad Dar (28), a resident of Dar Mohalla, Sunbrari, Kokernag in Anantnag district, had challenged his preventive detention through his brother. He was detained based on a dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Anantnag, alleging that his activities were prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory.

According to the grounds of detention, the petitioner was working at Darul Ahiya-Aloom, Bindoo Madrassa, Kokernag, and was active on social media platforms including Facebook, WhatsApp and Snapchat. Reference was also made to FIR No. 219/2022 registered at Police Station Anantnag under Sections 120-B and 130 IPC read with Sections 18 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, in which another accused allegedly disclosed that he had been in contact with the petitioner. The petitioner, however, was not named as an accused in the FIR and had earlier been questioned and released on a surety bond due to insufficient evidence.

The detention order was executed on April 24, 2024, and the petitioner was lodged in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal. The Government approved the detention on April 29, 2024, and later confirmed it following the opinion of the Advisory Board.

After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Court held that the District Magistrate had relied solely on a two-page police dossier along with annexed documents and had failed to independently assess the material before arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction.

The Court observed that the petitioner was subjected to preventive detention “just by a blank reference” on the part of the SSP, followed by an equally “bland application of mind” by the District Magistrate.

In a sharp remark, the Court stated that the PSA had been invoked with a degree of non-seriousness “with which even a motorist is not subjected to a routine traffic challan.”

Holding the detention to be unsustainable in law, the Court declared it illegal from the very inception and directed the Senior Superintendent of the concerned jail to release the petitioner forthwith, if not required in any other case.

The judgment was reserved on February 2, 2026, and pronounced on February 5, 2026.