MUMTAZ AHMAD MIR vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ANR. (HOME)

1
P a g e |

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR



HCP No. 174/2025

Reserved on: 07.05.2026

Pronounced on: 14.05.2026
Uploaded on: ____________

Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced - Full


Mumtaz Ahmad Mir
S/O Muzamil Hussain Mir,
R/O Sultandaki, Tehsil Uri,
District Baramulla.


…Petitioner(s)

Through: Sr.Adv. T.H.Khawaja with
Adv. Naveed Bukhtiyar.

Vs.


1. Union Territory of J&K through
Principal Secretary to Govt.,
Home Department,
Civil Sectt. Srinagar.

2. District Magistrate, Baramulla.


…Respondent(s)

Through: Dy.AG Hakim Aman Ali.



CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A.CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. Through the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of Detention
Order No. 13/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 07.05.2025 passed by
respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Baramulla under the
provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978,
whereby detenue namely Mumtaz Ahmad Mir @ Billa has been

2
P a g e |

placed under preventive detention in order to curb his activities
prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘security of the State’.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order of detention
is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional inasmuch as the grounds
of detention are vague, non-existent and irrelevant. It is
contended that the detenue was arrested in a case registered
vide FIR No.15/2021 under sections 7/27 Arms Act and 2/3
EIMCO at Police Station Uri, merely on the allegation that his
cousin and uncle are associates of militants, without there being
any material showing involvement of the detenue, himself, in any
activity prejudicial to the security of the State. It is further pleaded
that the constitutional and statutory safeguards guaranteed to the
detenue were violated as the material relied upon by the
detaining authority was not furnished to him, thereby depriving
him of making an effective representation against the order of
detention.
3. Respondents have filed their reply/counter affidavit, wherein it is
stated that the detenue had played a key role in strengthening
the underground network of anti-national elements operating in
the Valley; that the detenue had acted as a courier, transporting
arms, ammunition and communications between militants and
their handlers; that the detenue was in close touch with his
cousin-Safeer Ahmad Mir, who exfiltrated to Pakistan occupied
Kashmir (PoK) in the year 1990 and has not returned till date;
that the maternal uncle of detenue namely Sarfaraz Ahmad Mir,
affiliated with ‘HM’ outfit, underwent arms training in PoK,
infiltrated back into the Valley and got neutralized during an

3
P a g e |

encounter with Security Forces at Dulanga Uri, on 09.02.2021;
that the grounds of detention gave complete account of the
activities of the detenue which on the face of it are highly
prejudicial to the security of the UT of J&K, as such, there was no
option left to the detaining authority but to order detention of the
detenue under PSA, 1978.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention
record and considered the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that
preventive detention being an exception to the normal rule of
personal liberty, the procedural safeguards enshrined under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution are required to be strictly
complied with; that the allegations in the grounds of detention are
vague and based solely upon relationship of the detenue with
certain relatives alleged to be militant associates, which cannot
by itself furnish a valid basis for preventive detention. It is also
argued that the entire material and the allied documents, relied
upon by the detaining authority, were not supplied to the
detenue, thereby rendering his right to make an effective
representation illusory.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
supported the order of detention and submitted that the detaining
authority has derived subjective satisfaction on the basis of
material placed before it; that the detenue’s continuous anti-
national and illegal activities made it imperative to detain the
detenue under the provisions of Public Safety Act and there were
sufficient grounds available for such detention; that the live link is

4
P a g e |

still sustaining, as the detenue is still involved in the anti-national
activities and the adverse reports projected by the sponsoring
agency to recommend the detenue for preventive detention
under the provisions of the Public Safety Act.
7. A perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that the detenue
has been detained primarily on the allegation that his cousin and
uncle are associates of militants and that he is in touch with
them. Except for such omnibus assertions, there is no specific
allegation indicating any overt act, involvement or prejudicial
activity attributable to the detenue himself. No particulars
regarding dates, places, nature of alleged activities or specific
role of the detenue have been indicated in the grounds.
8. It is settled law that vague and indefinite allegations deprive a
detenue of making an effective representation against the order
of detention. In Chaju Ram v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
reported as AIR 1971 SC 263
, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that vague allegations without particulars render detention illegal,
the relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
“Even as to the grounds, we have something to
say. The grounds charge him with having
conspired with some leaders of Democratic
Conference and having incited landless people of
R.S.Pura Tehsil to forcibly occupy the land
comprised in Nandpur Mechanised Farm and to
have persuaded them to resist violently any
attempt to evict them. No details of the leaders of
the Conference or of the persons incited or the
dates on which he conspired or incited the
squatters or the time when such conference took
place, are mentioned. It would be impossible for
anybody to make a representation against such
grounds. These grounds, on the authorities of this
Court, too numerous to be cited here, must be
held to be vague. Therefore on both the twin
grounds, namely, that he was deprived of his right

5
P a g e |

to make a representation and also because the
grounds in themselves were very vague, we must
hold that there was no compliance with the law as
laid down in the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive
Detention Act. The result, therefore, is that the
detention must be declared to be unlawful and
Chaju must be declared to be entitled to his
liberty. He is ordered to be released. The detenu
was questioned by us and he expressed a desire
that he may not be released in Delhi, because he
has no means of going back. He asked to be
released in Jammu. We direct therefore that he
shall be taken back to the place where he was in
detention in Jammu and released within the
shortest possible time.”

Similar view has been taken in Shalini Soni v. Union of India
reported as (1980) 4 SCC 544; and Jahangirkhan Fazalkhan
Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad reported as
(1989) 3 SCC 590 , wherein it has been held that grounds lacking
material particulars violate Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
9. Preventive detention cannot be sustained merely on the basis of
relationship or association with persons allegedly involved in
unlawful activities unless there exists cogent material
demonstrating independent involvement of the detenue in
prejudicial activities. In Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal
reported as (1975) 2 SCC 81 , the Supreme Court held that
subjective satisfaction is open to judicial review where the
detention is based upon irrelevant or non-existent material.
Likewise, in Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra
reported as AIR 1987 SC 137 , it was held that mere suspicion or
association without proximate prejudicial acts cannot justify
preventive detention.
10. The detention record further reveals that copies of the dossier,
statements, and other material relied upon by the detaining

6
P a g e |

authority were not furnished to the detenue. Though the
respondents claim that grounds of detention were read over and
explained to him, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that
the entire relied upon material was supplied, except order of
detention, warrant, grounds of detention and Police dossier.
11. Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that the detenue must
be communicated the grounds of detention and afforded the
earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.
Such right can be exercised effectively only when whole of the
material relied upon by the detaining authority is furnished to the
detenue. Failure to supply the relevant material vitiates the
detention order. In Sophia Ghulam Mohammad Bham v. State
of Maharashtra reported as (1999) 6 SCC 593
, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that all material relied upon by the detaining
authority must be supplied to the detenue. The said observation
is reproduced as under:-

“The right to be communicated the
grounds of detention flows from Article
22(5) while the right to be supplied all the
material on which the grounds are based
flows from the right given to the detenue to
make a representation against the order of
detention. A representation can be made
and the order of detention can be assailed
only when all the grounds on which the
order is based are communicated to the
detenue and the material on which those
grounds are based are also disclosed and
copies thereof are supplied to the person
detained, in his own language.”

7
P a g e |


Similar view has been reiterated in Thahira Haris v.
Government of Karnataka reported as (2009) 11 SCC 438 ,
wherein it has been held that non-supply of relied upon
documents, infringes the constitutional guarantee under Article
22(5) and renders the detention unsustainable.
12. In the present case, non-supply of relied upon material has
unquestionably prejudiced the detenue in making an effective
representation against his detention. Consequently, the valuable
constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) stands
infringed.
13. Preventive detention is a serious invasion upon personal liberty
protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since,
such detention is based on subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority without trial, the constitutional safeguards
provided under Article 22(5) assume great significance and are
required to be strictly adhered to. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India reported as (1980) 4
SCC 531 , observed that the procedural safeguards in preventive
detention matters are sacrosanct and even the slightest infraction
thereof would vitiate the detention. Similarly, in Rekha v. State of
Tamil Nadu reported as (2011) 5 SCC 244 , the Apex Court has
held that preventive detention laws, being repugnant to
democratic ideas and an anathema to the rule of law, must be
strictly construed. Relevant extract of the said judgment is as
under:-

8
P a g e |

“29. Prevention detention is, by nature,
repugnant to democratic ideas and an
anathema to the rule of law. No such law
exists in the USA and in England (except
during war time). Since, however, Article
22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India
permits preventive detention, we cannot
hold it illegal but we must confine the
power of preventive detention within
very narrow limits, otherwise we will be
taking away the great right to liberty
guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India which was won
after long, arduous and historic
struggles. It follows, therefore, that if the
ordinary law of the land (the Penal Code
and other penal statutes) can deal with a
situation, recourse to a preventive
detention law will be illegal.
30. Whenever an order under a
preventive detention law is challenged
one of the questions the court must ask
in deciding its legality is: Was the
ordinary law of the land sufficient to deal
with the situation? If the answer is in the
affirmative, the detention order will be
illegal. In the present case, the charge
against the detenu was of selling
expired drugs after changing their
labels. Surely the relevant provisions in
the Penal Code and the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act were sufficient to deal
with this situation. Hence, in our
opinion, for this reason also the
detention order in question was illegal.”
14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the impugned detention order cannot withstand judicial
scrutiny. The grounds of detention are vague and lacking in
material particulars, and the constitutional safeguards available
to the detenue have also been violated due to non-supply of
relevant material relied upon by the detaining authority
15. Viewed thus, the petition is allowed and Detention Order No.
13/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 07.05.2025 passed by respondent No.
2-District Magistrate, Baramulla, is, hereby quashed.

9
P a g e |

Respondents are directed to release the detenue from preventive
custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with
any other case(s).
16. Scanned detention record, is directed to be sent back.

( M. A. CHOWDHARY )
JUDGE
Srinagar
14.05.2026
Muzammil. Q

Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No